the point is whether "more efficient crossover" has any useful meaning, by itself or in relation to "more dynamic speaker"
you have a bit of explaining to do to make either point
speaker efficiency is way dominated by the drivers, enclosure alignment - usually we loose factors of the order of 30x in the drivers
and the speaker driver's thermal, excursion and distortion limits usually limit the power that can be usefully applied to them, the max SPL they can produce that you would want to listen to, to score as "dynamic sounding" or not
I really don't see why XO efficiency per se is relevant to "sounds more dynamic" - if inefficient for reasons of driver choice then regardless of XO design you have to use a bigger amp, drive to the transducer limits
you have a bit of explaining to do to make either point
speaker efficiency is way dominated by the drivers, enclosure alignment - usually we loose factors of the order of 30x in the drivers
and the speaker driver's thermal, excursion and distortion limits usually limit the power that can be usefully applied to them, the max SPL they can produce that you would want to listen to, to score as "dynamic sounding" or not
I really don't see why XO efficiency per se is relevant to "sounds more dynamic" - if inefficient for reasons of driver choice then regardless of XO design you have to use a bigger amp, drive to the transducer limits
Last edited:
By itself it has no useful meaning, I agree. My be also in relation to "more dynamic speaker". But my point was different. The thread title is "what makes a speaker sound dynamic". So it is more about "what variables have an affect on...".
Just like many other things in this audio hobby, it is not difficult to know what the variables are (that's why everyone can participate in this thread). The hardest part is to know to what degree each of these variables affect the outcome (that's why, the answers from the participants, no matter complete, do not really fulfill the questioner's need).
And don't forget, the statements such as "I hear that this sounds more dynamics than that" doesn't come from theorists. It comes from those who can hear and who build things. My point is, I have good ears, so I know what these people are talking about when they say what they say. I may not have the theoretical answer, but I hear what they hear.
You know the Physics better, but if you don't know what they mean when they say "dynamics", you will have a harder time connecting the phenomenon with Physics. Yes?
And the amplifier. The fundamental element is the ability of the power amplifier to deliver clean power, without disturbing the system enough to cause higher levels of distortion to be injected. Most don't, which is why people usually 'win' by using very efficient speakers ... having been able to get "cheap and nasty" bookshelfs to deliver genuinely dynamic sound by ensuring the electronic chain was up to it, I have zero interest in systems driving pretentious, "humongous" speakers which end up sounding like PA bins when asked to work harder.
Dynamic sound is achieved by getting the whole system right - focusing on just one aspect only, like the speakers, just makes the job of getting there so, so much harder ...
I think the most important aspect to make speakers sound dynamic is playing music with dynamics through them !
Regards
Charles
Regards
Charles
@Steve, Um, I can't get the normal page 2 of this thread. Bug of some sort, so I posted blind hoping to unstick it. Didn't work though.
@Jay, subjective? I'd say that of listening in general. It's illogical to suggest that the process of fixing the current problem has to avoid reasoning and process. I understand there are a couple of different interpretations of dynamics, so maybe I'm not understanding.
To say that a crossover kills sensitivity is a little strong. Parasitic and intended losses, sure. A relevant question might be: can sensitivity help, and how? and of course, what is this dynamics thing?
Some things are difficult to identify by ear, often very much more so when there's a raft of different issues on the floor. At least a problem that's known can lead to a list of things to check.
@Jay, subjective? I'd say that of listening in general. It's illogical to suggest that the process of fixing the current problem has to avoid reasoning and process. I understand there are a couple of different interpretations of dynamics, so maybe I'm not understanding.
To say that a crossover kills sensitivity is a little strong. Parasitic and intended losses, sure. A relevant question might be: can sensitivity help, and how? and of course, what is this dynamics thing?
Some things are difficult to identify by ear, often very much more so when there's a raft of different issues on the floor. At least a problem that's known can lead to a list of things to check.
I wish that you actually had succeeded in the past of getting a pair of modern design horn-loaded loudspeakers to start with. Everyone that I know that has gotten them will never sell theirs, short of having a short-term monetary shortfall calamity.
If you instrument your bookshelf loudspeakers using a dual tone test signal at least at 85 dBC, then look at the upper frequency reproduced spectra, you will see many visible sidebands of at least -20 or even higher relative SPL on each driver (i.e., dual tone testing each driver within its passband). When you see and hear those modulation distortion products, then hear a set of loudspeakers that have those sidebands down -40 or lower, you'll know what to do.
I agree that everything in a sound reproduction system needs to be balanced in terms of good performance, but you cannot make an undersized loudspeaker with severely undersized direct-radiating drivers (in terms of driver surface area) that doesn't have those sidebands at even 85 dBC--thus making the sound opaque--and without also having similar issues with compression distortion during those accompanying music peaks. If you never listen to your music at louder than 70 dBA, then we don't have very much in common to talk about on this subject.
It's just physics. Sound waves in air cannot be miniaturized and that's the issue that I believe all "small loudspeaker" proponents forget. Any time you try to make your acoustic sound source smaller than the characteristic frequencies that are present in music, you are giving up something that you cannot regain with simply buying more expensive electronics--I'm sorry to say.
Chris
Last edited:
Dual tone with 85 dBC? You are talking of the C-weighting-filter, aren't you? So what's the point using such a filter with a dual tone excitation?
This is something that you measure with a hand-held SPL meter or calibrated microphone running with acoustic analysis system. I use this measure so that I don't have to argue about sensitivity or anything else in-between.
It's the end loudness at your listening position that is the measure of merit, not some intermediate electrical and mechanical measure.
Chris
typical 90db speaker, 0.63% effecient. 105db 20%. then add 20db dynamic range for a good recording and power required. wich will have the lowest distortion and perceivable dynamics? but the noisefloor may be of concern..
When one listens to live sound, say, normal acoustic instruments played with gusto, ppp to fff -then the impression is of a dynamic presentation - even if the instrument is a lone flute. So all an audio system has to do is recreate that same presentation, and then you will have dynamics - a decent piano recording of some vigorous Chopin, played back at realistic SPLs will tell you if the system has got it or not - the attack and rich intensity of a crashing, full impact chord should be fully intact, with all the harmonics in place, cleanly reproduced, fully convincing.
A very high percentage of systems would fail miserably on this, no "guts" to the sound, or badly, obviously distorting - get a system to do this right, and then all of your other recordings will come to life as well ...
A very high percentage of systems would fail miserably on this, no "guts" to the sound, or badly, obviously distorting - get a system to do this right, and then all of your other recordings will come to life as well ...
Hello,
i guess "real" dynamics means something like dynamic headroom and low nonlinear distorsion, the lack of dynamic compression etc. ...
And here it does not matter at a first glance, how this is achieved in an individual loudspeaker design.
If a loudspeaker has low distorsion and compression within its designed range of use, then it has appropriate dynamics. Even the behaviour at low and very low levels is relevant here IMO.
What some audiophiles claim being "dynamic sound" instead, seems to me as multiple aspects coming together in a mostly individual mix, going together with just "individual listening habits".
Thus "dynamic sound" may be influenced by
- dispersion pattern of the loudspeaker also depending on frequency
- interaction with the actual listening room, where the speaker is placed in
- artefacts of the loudspeaker itself
First there seems a tendency for loudspeakers having higher directivity - especially at low and mid frequencies - to sound "more dynamic" to some listeners.
I personally do not like the term to describe this effect, but it may have to do with modulation transfer function.
A loudspeaker/room system acting "more dry" may also sound "more dynamic" to some listeners.
I then prefer simply saying "more dry" or "dry" or "higher depth of modulation" when measuring loudspeaker/room systems.
There seems another notion of "dynamic sound" that may be correlated to certain kinds of early reflections, which contribute to loudness impression.
When those reflections are highly correlated to the direct sound, especially transients (e.g. from drums) may be "intensified" subjectively.
E.g. line sources used in rooms with nondiffuse flat shaped and untreated side walls may act like this. It sounds "intensive" and may be "impressive" on some programme material but is also "wrong": Drums in a musical venue having good acoustics do not sound like this and they won't also sound this way on a well made recording.
This kind of "enhanced loudness" is simply an urgent call for room treatment, regarding the type of loudspeakers used.
A similar effect may occur with horns, that have some length compared to wavelength radiated but suffer from strong reflections from the mouth.
Those (bad to mediocre designed) horns may also have a subjectively "loudness enhancing" effect on some transients, as i experience it, but which is also an artefact.
To cut a long story a bit shorter, "dynamic sound" as used in audiophile circles, is a highly "suspicious" term to me, which may be related to artefacts very often.
Real good (measurable) "dynamic behaviour" and a non detrimental loudspeaker/room interaction will truly also yield a realistic and "dynamic" sound, but that may be something completely different from "dynamic sound" that some audiophiles are seeking for ...
Kind Regards
i guess "real" dynamics means something like dynamic headroom and low nonlinear distorsion, the lack of dynamic compression etc. ...
And here it does not matter at a first glance, how this is achieved in an individual loudspeaker design.
If a loudspeaker has low distorsion and compression within its designed range of use, then it has appropriate dynamics. Even the behaviour at low and very low levels is relevant here IMO.
What some audiophiles claim being "dynamic sound" instead, seems to me as multiple aspects coming together in a mostly individual mix, going together with just "individual listening habits".
Thus "dynamic sound" may be influenced by
- dispersion pattern of the loudspeaker also depending on frequency
- interaction with the actual listening room, where the speaker is placed in
- artefacts of the loudspeaker itself
First there seems a tendency for loudspeakers having higher directivity - especially at low and mid frequencies - to sound "more dynamic" to some listeners.
I personally do not like the term to describe this effect, but it may have to do with modulation transfer function.
A loudspeaker/room system acting "more dry" may also sound "more dynamic" to some listeners.
I then prefer simply saying "more dry" or "dry" or "higher depth of modulation" when measuring loudspeaker/room systems.
There seems another notion of "dynamic sound" that may be correlated to certain kinds of early reflections, which contribute to loudness impression.
When those reflections are highly correlated to the direct sound, especially transients (e.g. from drums) may be "intensified" subjectively.
E.g. line sources used in rooms with nondiffuse flat shaped and untreated side walls may act like this. It sounds "intensive" and may be "impressive" on some programme material but is also "wrong": Drums in a musical venue having good acoustics do not sound like this and they won't also sound this way on a well made recording.
This kind of "enhanced loudness" is simply an urgent call for room treatment, regarding the type of loudspeakers used.
A similar effect may occur with horns, that have some length compared to wavelength radiated but suffer from strong reflections from the mouth.
Those (bad to mediocre designed) horns may also have a subjectively "loudness enhancing" effect on some transients, as i experience it, but which is also an artefact.
To cut a long story a bit shorter, "dynamic sound" as used in audiophile circles, is a highly "suspicious" term to me, which may be related to artefacts very often.
Real good (measurable) "dynamic behaviour" and a non detrimental loudspeaker/room interaction will truly also yield a realistic and "dynamic" sound, but that may be something completely different from "dynamic sound" that some audiophiles are seeking for ...
Kind Regards
Last edited:
Hi Pano,
yes, your german is excellent.
The x-coordinate is "power efficiency in percent" in that diagram.
Cheers
Well Olivier, there are certainly room and speaker faults that can make a speaker sound dynamic. A peak in the frequency response right at that certain trumpet note would be an easy example. 🙂 The faults are artifacts, not fact of the recording. None the less, it "sounds" dynamic.
But there are systems that really do have large, clean dynamic ranges without too many audible artifacts. To me, those are very satisfying and enjoyable. And they sound less like speakers to me than more compromised systems.
But there are systems that really do have large, clean dynamic ranges without too many audible artifacts. To me, those are very satisfying and enjoyable. And they sound less like speakers to me than more compromised systems.
Pano said:
Pano,
completely agreed.
But are those loudspeakers, that we may seem to agree talking about currently, the same that a "majority" of audiophiles would regard as having "excellent dynamic sound" ?
I am not quite sure about that ...
Cheers
Now that is a fine statement in a good post. I read it with much acclaim and would advise to take notice of this.
LineArray,
High directivity being associated with high efficiency, some of these listeners try to prove that there is no other way to get the realistic dynamic range of the initial music. They forget that the dynamic range is always limited at the production stage of the record.
I always found that, at usual domestic distances, systems of high directivity lack a sense of life, as "clean" as they can otherwise be.
I wholly agree.
To some listeners. Not all.
High directivity being associated with high efficiency, some of these listeners try to prove that there is no other way to get the realistic dynamic range of the initial music. They forget that the dynamic range is always limited at the production stage of the record.
I always found that, at usual domestic distances, systems of high directivity lack a sense of life, as "clean" as they can otherwise be.
Hi forr,
i guess i know what you are describing.
Usually "higher directivity" is only achieved in loudspeakers, where it is possible at low cost ... and that is from mid to high frequencies.
I am also - like you are maybe - convinced that some "well chosen" room reflections belong to (contribute to) "good stereo reproduction" at mid to high frequencies.
A "higher than usual" (usually 0dB) directivity index say from 3dB to 4.7dB at lower to mid frequencies may contribute to "get along with small room acoustics" and does not usually lack "sense of life", when "beaming" from mid to highs is avoided on the other hand.
But such kinds of settings are rare, usually we have "undirected bass to midrange" but strongly rising directivity from upper mids to highs, when talking about "more directional" speakers.
Most of those designs are IMO not very "well suited" for good performance in "usual living rooms".
Cheers
Last edited:
Oliver, that a question that is almost impossible to answer, but I did anticipate it. 🙂
All I can say from my experience is that everyone I've seen faced with a clean, high dynamic system has been pleased and pleasantly surprised. I was, 30 years ago - Rue de Belfort, Paris. If the listeners are audiophiles they are inspired to get a system like that, if they are DIY types, they go home and start building systems like that.
The high dynamic range systems that I have managed to build have inspired a few builders.
So, I don't really know what a majority of Audiophiles regard as dynamic, but all I've seen who listen to a real dynamic system, want one. Some people just don't know they actual exist.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.