angeloitacare said:
With this very simple set up, it's hard to imagine that the response will be very close to flat over the full range. I'm not saying that it's good or bad for you, as it's a matter of what you like. But the small change in HF response will be minor compared to other adjustments you might want to make, and which would be much more audible. Without some measurements, it's hard to suggest anything specific. But a simple shelving high pass filter is pretty simple, consisting of a cap and parallel resistor, both in series with the driver. Previous, in this tread I believe, Wayne gave some examples of how to integrate and compensate drivers in similar systems. Worth a good look.
angeloitacare said:
Voices are where horn colorations are most obvious to me.
Sheldon
noah katz said:
I loved some of the old stuff! But when I listened to it on the Summas, I could hear all the flaws - clipped mics, too many to enumerate. It's pretty amazing how poor speakers covers up all this stuff. Thats exactly what I found and exactly what John has found.
hi Sheldon
that's where i am working now. Never done measurements before. I bought recently a microphone, mic pre amp, sound card, and will start making measurments as soon as everything is installed. I might need some help....
Angelo
that's where i am working now. Never done measurements before. I bought recently a microphone, mic pre amp, sound card, and will start making measurments as soon as everything is installed. I might need some help....
Angelo
So did you mean to say
" Newer speakers are so much better. And thats unfortunate in many ways"
" Newer recording are so much better. And thats unfortunate in many ways"
"How so?"
"I loved some of the old stuff! But when I listened to it on the Summas, I could hear all the flaws - clipped mics, too many to enumerate. It's pretty amazing how poor speakers covers up all this stuff. Thats exactly what I found and exactly what John has found."
" Newer speakers are so much better. And thats unfortunate in many ways"
" Newer recording are so much better. And thats unfortunate in many ways"
"How so?"
"I loved some of the old stuff! But when I listened to it on the Summas, I could hear all the flaws - clipped mics, too many to enumerate. It's pretty amazing how poor speakers covers up all this stuff. Thats exactly what I found and exactly what John has found."
well now, I think recordings can be better today, technology hasn't stood still over the last 60 years, but I don't think they are better in many cases. There is the whole loudness wars business that has affected so many great recordings and is my biggest problem with modern recordings. Ok, so by using active compression systems you won't hear a clipping mic, or likely hear anything clipping, but you also have typically less than 10db's of dynamic range. In fact spectral analysis has shown, by myself and many others, that modern digital recordings, especially those "digitally remastered" recordings have less dynamic range than the analogue record counterparts of 30-40 years ago. There is no reason for this, its not a technology difference, its simply a concession the industry made to make recordings sound better on the average system people listen to music on. I think I read recently that the average person listens to music mostly in their car, on a clock radio, or through their tv's built in speakers.
Now, I also have some audiophile recordings, Vinyl, cd, SACD, and DVD formats, and often they made much less use of compression, giving recordings often between 20 and 40db's of dynamic range, much better. I mean, when you consider the dynamic range of an instrument like a piano, a clarinet, a guitar, 10db's is simply not enough to capture the natural sound of that instrument. Given that modern technology, even modern mic's can often have dynamic ranges in excess of 80db's (ok some are in excess of 120, but I know of no mics that can do that).
Then you have all the post processing that is done during final mastering. You have things like eqing that is done, again, the industry has chosen to eq for the types of systems people listen on. Bass is turned up, midrange turned down, treble turned up, and often in obnoxious ways. Again, not true of audiophile recordings, but who wants to listen to pan flute music all day.
I think many of the recordings of yore are much better than todays, there is just no reason for that to be the case. Yes many of them are plagued with instrument clipping, mic clipping, etc. However they at least captured instruments with natural timbre, semi-realistic dynamic range, and of good music.
Now, I also have some audiophile recordings, Vinyl, cd, SACD, and DVD formats, and often they made much less use of compression, giving recordings often between 20 and 40db's of dynamic range, much better. I mean, when you consider the dynamic range of an instrument like a piano, a clarinet, a guitar, 10db's is simply not enough to capture the natural sound of that instrument. Given that modern technology, even modern mic's can often have dynamic ranges in excess of 80db's (ok some are in excess of 120, but I know of no mics that can do that).
Then you have all the post processing that is done during final mastering. You have things like eqing that is done, again, the industry has chosen to eq for the types of systems people listen on. Bass is turned up, midrange turned down, treble turned up, and often in obnoxious ways. Again, not true of audiophile recordings, but who wants to listen to pan flute music all day.
I think many of the recordings of yore are much better than todays, there is just no reason for that to be the case. Yes many of them are plagued with instrument clipping, mic clipping, etc. However they at least captured instruments with natural timbre, semi-realistic dynamic range, and of good music.
I said it right
Whats the problem?
Newer recordings sound better, but there was some great stuff done long ago, its just that it doesn't sound so good on the better speakers. Some holds up well, some doesn't at all. I used to like Moondance by Van Morrison, but the recording is terrible and I never noticed this before. I can't listen to it now.
Whats the problem? Newer recordings sound better, but there was some great stuff done long ago, its just that it doesn't sound so good on the better speakers. Some holds up well, some doesn't at all. I used to like Moondance by Van Morrison, but the recording is terrible and I never noticed this before. I can't listen to it now.
Matt
No contest that theres a lot of junk out there today too. But the very best of today is a lot better than the very best of the past (recording wise). Time in the recodring studio has not stood still. Some people have gotten quite good with the newer capability, some abuse it and even more still simply don't understand it and know how to use it.
Loudness wars are a pain. Its mostly for car radio where more music is listened to than anywhere else. What a shame. Compression to 10 dB in a car is fine. You don't have much more room than that anyways.
No contest that theres a lot of junk out there today too. But the very best of today is a lot better than the very best of the past (recording wise). Time in the recodring studio has not stood still. Some people have gotten quite good with the newer capability, some abuse it and even more still simply don't understand it and know how to use it.
Loudness wars are a pain. Its mostly for car radio where more music is listened to than anywhere else. What a shame. Compression to 10 dB in a car is fine. You don't have much more room than that anyways.
I didn't understand what was unfortunate about better recordings, but I guess it's what you said in what you just posted.
Don't you find the lack of dynamic range bothersome in giving a realistic representation of the performance? I mean, Moondance might be a bad example as it is a pop recording and even for then was overly compressed, but take something like jazz recordings. I have a few cd's of this guy on the Concord label as well as some stuff he did on this japanese label. He has been recording since the 60's, and so his recordings span that. The stuff he put out in the 60's show around 30-40db's of dynamic range on Vinyl, and more like 15-20 on cd. The newer recordings he did on Concord (which isn't even that bad a label) were so compressed that they only had 10-15db's of dynamic range. I saw him on his tour and talked with him when he told me about switching to a label using a japanese recording studio and production group. When I got the album I was amazed at how much more realistic it sounded, and a look at the spectrum showed a considerably greater dynamic range, again, into the 30-35 db range. Even this is terribly compressed compared to what it could be, but it was at least better than 10.
I think the problem is that engineers began making recordings under the assumption that the average listening level would be 60-70db's, and that people would find anything over 80 objectionable. They then brought the bottom of the dynamic range up so that it would play reasonably at 60-70db's, and never exceed 10db's more than that. Fine for the average person I guess, but not good for those of us who actually enjoy music.
I think the problem is that engineers began making recordings under the assumption that the average listening level would be 60-70db's, and that people would find anything over 80 objectionable. They then brought the bottom of the dynamic range up so that it would play reasonably at 60-70db's, and never exceed 10db's more than that. Fine for the average person I guess, but not good for those of us who actually enjoy music.
Yeah the car probably is a big contributor in that. Amazing how one industry has impacted another so strongly, but I have read what you stated by others, and it does make sense. I mean, if you consider that the noise floor in a car hovers around say 65db's. Then assume that the music needs to be, oh say 5-10db's over that. Lets just say that puts the music now at an average level around 75db's. Now consider that the average car stereo probably can't cleanly play much louder than 80 or 90db's, that really puts things into perspective.
Then consider a cheaper car with poorer sound insulation, maybe even a car like my wrx where at 70mph on z rated 45 series tires, the average level is more like 75db's, music now has to be more at like 80 to 85, and I'm positive my stereo can't cleanly play beyond that point really.
Then consider a cheaper car with poorer sound insulation, maybe even a car like my wrx where at 70mph on z rated 45 series tires, the average level is more like 75db's, music now has to be more at like 80 to 85, and I'm positive my stereo can't cleanly play beyond that point really.
There are lots of levels of tallent in the recording end of the biz just as there are in the music end.
pjpoes said:
Correct. When I was at Ford we argued that the compression SHOULD BE done in the car, not on the recording or in the transmission - but, we lost.
Hi Earl,
But then, I've always found Ford sound systems completely unlistenable, even on AM! I guess your argument with them was truly a non-issue. The worst was a '92 Taurus wagon. Total horror story, that car. There was a 1/2" ~ 3/4" space between each speaker and the interior panel on a skinny flexible bracket. No bass, shrill mids and zero highs. And this was one under the top of the line radio. Total junk.
Since you were at Ford Earl, I often wondered how they managed to always have the worst radios. What was corporate thinking?
-Chris
Absolutely! Anything else is just plain stupid. Besides, you could easily defeat the compression for listening while parked.
But then, I've always found Ford sound systems completely unlistenable, even on AM! I guess your argument with them was truly a non-issue. The worst was a '92 Taurus wagon. Total horror story, that car. There was a 1/2" ~ 3/4" space between each speaker and the interior panel on a skinny flexible bracket. No bass, shrill mids and zero highs. And this was one under the top of the line radio. Total junk.
Since you were at Ford Earl, I often wondered how they managed to always have the worst radios. What was corporate thinking?
-Chris
Those Mach systems in the mustangs were actually very impressive over all. Before companies like Lexicon, Levinson, Linn, and B&W began working with car companies to put their names on the stereo's, there weren't many good systems. I don't consider those great either, but they are better than 90% of even the premium systems.
One of the best stock systems I ever heard was the BMW Z3 with its premium sound system. I guess Bob Carver developed the subwoofer, and their own acoustic engineers developed the rest. While the setup was very simple, and tonaly it wasn't the most accurate, it had a convincing sound stage for a car. The speakers where in the kick panels from the factory, and I think it really helped. Bob Carver has some wild stories on how that system was developed that really makes you think they put a lot of time and money into designing it. Too bad the bean counters ruined it with cheap components.
One of the best stock systems I ever heard was the BMW Z3 with its premium sound system. I guess Bob Carver developed the subwoofer, and their own acoustic engineers developed the rest. While the setup was very simple, and tonaly it wasn't the most accurate, it had a convincing sound stage for a car. The speakers where in the kick panels from the factory, and I think it really helped. Bob Carver has some wild stories on how that system was developed that really makes you think they put a lot of time and money into designing it. Too bad the bean counters ruined it with cheap components.
gedlee said:I said it right
Newer recordings sound better, but there was some great stuff done long ago, its just that it doesn't sound so good on the better speakers. Some holds up well, some doesn't at all. I used to like Moondance by Van Morrison, but the recording is terrible and I never noticed this before. I can't listen to it now.
Really? You never noticed? I've always thought that was a nasty recording, even while listening on FM in the car... Odd...
Isaac
Hi pjpoes,
Today's systems are much better, to be sure. But Ford's are still bad, and always have been. You can't make the least expensive North American car lines using the best stuff ...
That '92 Taurus will remain etched upon my mind as having the worst system I've ever seen. Mind you, that car also went through a ton of stuff that I've never seen break on a car. Two transmissions in less than 60,000 Km! I've only ever had one tranny go, and that was a 200R4 in a '84 Delta 88 with a V8 in it. High miles. This Taurus had no excuse at all.
Sorry for the O.T. If Earl can shed some light on the poor sound systems that Ford has always gone with, he could answer an age old question for me.
-Chris
We can accept that automotive sound systems were never great. I've had over 25 cars in my lifetime, all with the stock sound systems when I got them. The one in the '92 Taurus was the worst of the lot. My brother has 4 car lots, 2 are for new vehicles. Before that, he had used car lots and worked for GM. He also ran a successful auto body shop. So I have had wide exposure to cars from the 50's up to and including today.
Today's systems are much better, to be sure. But Ford's are still bad, and always have been. You can't make the least expensive North American car lines using the best stuff ...
That '92 Taurus will remain etched upon my mind as having the worst system I've ever seen. Mind you, that car also went through a ton of stuff that I've never seen break on a car. Two transmissions in less than 60,000 Km! I've only ever had one tranny go, and that was a 200R4 in a '84 Delta 88 with a V8 in it. High miles. This Taurus had no excuse at all.
Sorry for the O.T. If Earl can shed some light on the poor sound systems that Ford has always gone with, he could answer an age old question for me.
-Chris
Car Audio is not a topic that I want to dwell on. I never got involved with "standard" audio systems, only the high-end ones, like JBL, Mach, etc. I do know that no attention was paid to sound quality in the standard models. "Quality" to them meant it didn't break and those radios were darn near indestructable. They sounded terrible, but they did that forever and thats all that mattered to them.
We had some pretty good sound systems in prototypes, but they always got seriously degraded when they went into production.
But lets face it, cars are terrible listening rooms. I have to laugh when people talk about "great" car audio. In those spaces its just not possible. Thats why I lost interest.
We had some pretty good sound systems in prototypes, but they always got seriously degraded when they went into production.
But lets face it, cars are terrible listening rooms. I have to laugh when people talk about "great" car audio. In those spaces its just not possible. Thats why I lost interest.
fractal geometry
Dr. Geddes,
Hopefully this isn’t too far off topic. However it does concern waveguide and horn design so should be okay. Do you know of any works (papers, journals, articles, etc.) that deal with applying fractal geometry to waveguide/horn design? Or the analysis of sound propagation using fractal geometry? Do you think fractal geometry could be useful in loudspeaker development? I thought this might be an interesting question to ponder.
Rgs, JLH
Dr. Geddes,
Hopefully this isn’t too far off topic. However it does concern waveguide and horn design so should be okay. Do you know of any works (papers, journals, articles, etc.) that deal with applying fractal geometry to waveguide/horn design? Or the analysis of sound propagation using fractal geometry? Do you think fractal geometry could be useful in loudspeaker development? I thought this might be an interesting question to ponder.
Rgs, JLH
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Re: fractal geometry
Hmmm, looks like someone else just watched tonight's PBS TV airing of the NOVA episode on Fractal Geometry!
Put your loudspeaker driver under a microscope. Keep increasing the magnification, looking at smaller and smaller sections of the speaker driver as you proceed. If what you see continues to resemble a loudspeaker driver then I guess the answer to your question would be "yes". 😉
JLH said:
Hmmm, looks like someone else just watched tonight's PBS TV airing of the NOVA episode on Fractal Geometry!
Put your loudspeaker driver under a microscope. Keep increasing the magnification, looking at smaller and smaller sections of the speaker driver as you proceed. If what you see continues to resemble a loudspeaker driver then I guess the answer to your question would be "yes". 😉
Re: fractal geometry
Hello JLH,
Just a very partial answer:
The foam used by Earl Geddes possess most probably a fractal nature...
Relevant lectures should be find using "poroacoustics" as keyword.
Best regards from Paris, France
Jean-Michel Le Cléac'h
Hello JLH,
Just a very partial answer:
The foam used by Earl Geddes possess most probably a fractal nature...
Relevant lectures should be find using "poroacoustics" as keyword.
Best regards from Paris, France
Jean-Michel Le Cléac'h
JLH said: