I urge you to try a linear phase roll-off where the pre-response is not the problem it is in other areas. To hear a roll-off devoid of its natural minimum phase behaviour is worth the effort and also gives a subjective impression of increased low frequency extension too. Although that is of course just my learned opinion
But whilst we are talking positively about what is possible, the same advantage might also apply to other high-pass filters in the reproduction chain - and countless others that are no doubt present in typical recording chains. Not many high quality microphones of which I am aware operate without coupling capacitors for instance...
I urge you to try a linear phase roll-off where the pre-response is not the problem it is in other areas. To hear a roll-off devoid of its natural minimum phase behaviour is worth the effort and also gives a subjective impression of increased low frequency extension too. Although that is of course just my learned opinion
I did try that in fact. I came across more than one recording that didn't "feel" right. The real phase difference was small but very noticeable. So I decided to abandon strict linear phase. It might have been the fault of the recordings I listened to. But I want to be able to listen to anything and everything.
Relaxing just that bottom end extension made the difference between feet tapping to the music or having a slightly less pleasant experience. The only real difference was in the extreme low end. I have usable output down to 17 Hz.
It definitely was a feel thing, only bothersome on some recordings. Not live recordings I might add.
It's a compromise, one I can live with.
The effect is definitely recording dependent - hence the addition to my last post. There is also the matter of stereo to consider and whether shuffling should be applied. IMO when that is tried, it strengthened the case for the linear phase version being the "right" one.
As regards needing to listen to anything and everything, being able to switch out the compensation is necessary in any case for video applications and I would not advocate a permanent system setting of linear phase.
And yes, like audio reproduction in general, it is a compromise. Just one that irritates me as I now find minimum phase roll-offs instantly noticeable. Whether wrong or right I hope we might find more than two people with some experiences to share!
As regards needing to listen to anything and everything, being able to switch out the compensation is necessary in any case for video applications and I would not advocate a permanent system setting of linear phase.
And yes, like audio reproduction in general, it is a compromise. Just one that irritates me as I now find minimum phase roll-offs instantly noticeable. Whether wrong or right I hope we might find more than two people with some experiences to share!
Incidentally, I found a minimum phase system would need to be extended to lower than 5Hz for the comparison with linear phase to be indiscernible. Quite what the limit is was beyond the physical capabilities of the equipment I had available, but it was certainly more obvious for 20Hz than for 5Hz.
I tried a higher cut off frequency at 40 Hz, linear phase as it would suit my system better.
Missing out on that low end was not worth it to me. Whenever there's a real low end recorded it brings so much more atmosphere.
I'm planning to add more cone area to my setup, not for sheer SPL level, just to be able to play more accurately (have more ways of adjustability) with the low end roll off. No doubt I will visit a linear roll off again.
Here's an APL_TDA plot of my playback system including my DAC:
routed the output of the DAC to line in and ran the measurement. Theoretically, this is what we "should" get.
Comparing to the graph below as measured at the listening position:
That's the compromise, for a normal living room with "some" treatment, most of it out of sight it isn't bad at all. I made a promise not to add more damping panels and stuff like that. Though I did find an open spot to add more cone area without getting into trouble with the missis.
Missing out on that low end was not worth it to me. Whenever there's a real low end recorded it brings so much more atmosphere.
I'm planning to add more cone area to my setup, not for sheer SPL level, just to be able to play more accurately (have more ways of adjustability) with the low end roll off. No doubt I will visit a linear roll off again.
Here's an APL_TDA plot of my playback system including my DAC:
routed the output of the DAC to line in and ran the measurement. Theoretically, this is what we "should" get.
Comparing to the graph below as measured at the listening position:
That's the compromise, for a normal living room with "some" treatment, most of it out of sight it isn't bad at all. I made a promise not to add more damping panels and stuff like that. Though I did find an open spot to add more cone area without getting into trouble with the missis.
Last edited:
What is transient response in speaker?
1. Does transient response means how the speaker is producing dynamics sounds ?
2. I have heard low Qtc will have good transient response ? If that is the case why people refers to sealed system for good transient rather than Ported Speakers with low Qtc below 0.707 ?
3. Please give me some example we can identify speakers between good transient response and poor transient response ?
1. Does transient response means how the speaker is producing dynamics sounds ?
2. I have heard low Qtc will have good transient response ? If that is the case why people refers to sealed system for good transient rather than Ported Speakers with low Qtc below 0.707 ?
3. Please give me some example we can identify speakers between good transient response and poor transient response ?
Last edited:
Yes, sort of. It may be just wishy washy lingo from one of those a hifi magazines. In a more technical context, it may refer to the impulse response or the step response of the loudspeaker.
This relates to the bass tuning of the speaker. Q > 0.707 means the (theoretical...) step response shows oscillation in the time domain and a peak in the frequency response.
That really depends on what the designer defined as "good" or "poor". Ringing in the step response is often considered as "not good" in hifi circles. And some also don't like if the impluse/step response shows separted peaks related to time offsets in the sound waves emitted from tweeter/midrange/woofer drivers (i.e., the speaker is not "time coherent").
Hi All,
Good answers mbrennwa.
IMO: Normally, You should put (here LF Response) 'transient response' in context to a situation, where the influence from Room and your hearing/listening position are included too.
Here is an example of using inexpensive Drivers with high Qts that are tamed by using PEQ or LT in Sealed Boxes where HPF's are introduced to set the lowest cut-off frequency of the Speaker System that in Room will have a 'Blameless' pass-band response(Max allowed Speaker Qt(c) at cut-off is calculated) regarding transients (totally Masked by the Room itself).
See all submitted pictures here:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/subw...p-linkwitz-transform-project.html#post4994213
b
Good answers mbrennwa.
IMO: Normally, You should put (here LF Response) 'transient response' in context to a situation, where the influence from Room and your hearing/listening position are included too.
Here is an example of using inexpensive Drivers with high Qts that are tamed by using PEQ or LT in Sealed Boxes where HPF's are introduced to set the lowest cut-off frequency of the Speaker System that in Room will have a 'Blameless' pass-band response(Max allowed Speaker Qt(c) at cut-off is calculated) regarding transients (totally Masked by the Room itself).
See all submitted pictures here:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/subw...p-linkwitz-transform-project.html#post4994213
b
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.