Where is the magic in capturing the desired voicing in a speaker? Stewart Tyler gets the ProAc sound in every ProAc I have heard. Although they are decades apart, of completely different sizes and designs, and use different drivers, they have the ProAc sound, albeit with some variance. Same thing with Sonus Faber and Vienna Acoustics, and B&W to an extent.
How does the designer do this?
Thank you.
Jim
How does the designer do this?
Thank you.
Jim
I think 'voicing' must be something of a totally misunderstood 'myth'
if its derived from 'getting voices right', then ok, sure
but if you think it means that you can 'voice' a speaker to sound more or less the way you like it, then its completely wrong
its really very limited what you can do, without getting into all sorts of trouble
if its derived from 'getting voices right', then ok, sure
but if you think it means that you can 'voice' a speaker to sound more or less the way you like it, then its completely wrong
its really very limited what you can do, without getting into all sorts of trouble
ah, I see now what you are asking
well, if its really true what you say, that all their different speaker designs more or less have the same 'sound signature', or what you may call it, then I guess it comes from the way they 'think' when they choose drivers etc
most of it is probably considered very carefully, but some parts of it probably comes by itself, as a natural part of the way they do whatever it is they do
the target frequency curve, that really doesnt do it, just like that
A myth to a certain extent, but there is perhaps more to it then that.
If a certain company always uses the same type of mid/bass of roughly the same size with a similar cone material. Then generally uses the same type of box alignments, cabinet designs, similar crossover frequencies, orders of xover and similar amounts of bafflestep correction etc. Then you will end up with similar sounding loudspeakers with each of them sharing similar off axis curves, and sharing similarities with how the loudspeakers will interact with the room.
Earl I mean I bet all of your loudspeakers share similar traits due to the use of wave-guides with all of your loudspeakers having similar off axis trends that mean they interact with their environment in a particular way. You obviously cannot reproduce this simply by dialling any pair of loudspeakers to a set frequency response.
If a certain company always uses the same type of mid/bass of roughly the same size with a similar cone material. Then generally uses the same type of box alignments, cabinet designs, similar crossover frequencies, orders of xover and similar amounts of bafflestep correction etc. Then you will end up with similar sounding loudspeakers with each of them sharing similar off axis curves, and sharing similarities with how the loudspeakers will interact with the room.
Earl I mean I bet all of your loudspeakers share similar traits due to the use of wave-guides with all of your loudspeakers having similar off axis trends that mean they interact with their environment in a particular way. You obviously cannot reproduce this simply by dialling any pair of loudspeakers to a set frequency response.
There have always been manufacturers that voiced their speakers to a special sound. Not to any obscure individual preference of course, but to something that made them stick out in the dealers room. As Earl said: Just bend the response curve.
Rudolf
Well B&W are well known in their 800 series for using the FST 6.5" Kevlar midrange driver. This driver remains roughly constant across the entire series and is generally always used higher up in frequency then you'd expect. As a result you're exposed to some of its break-up and to some frequency response irregularities due to said break-up. Naturally the off axis suffers as a direct result of the high xover frequency. This should result in some kind of homogenisation of the sound signature across the series.
Monitor Audio loudspeakers are known for sounding a specific way too, which isn't a surprise considering they tend to use metal cone drivers up a little to high and don't always tame the peaks.
Hi,
No its not, though the axial response is important. A "house" sound
includes the off axis power response, and combined its this that
generally makes a typical manufacturers "preferred" sound.
rgds, sreten.
In the mid 70s Canton "invented" the Taunus sound (named after the Taunus hills, where the Canton factory was), which was a mild loudness "enhancement". Sort of bathtub response. It was very well received by the audio magazines and the buying public. So much so that factories like Heco and Braun had to follow that sound to keep their market share. In the mid 80s the Taunus sound had been copied by almost all german manufacturers and therefore became obsolete rapidly. 😉
There are of course a myriad things that make up a "sound", but the easiest to manipulate, which is also the most effective is the frequency response.
As I am fond of saying, if all speakers were perfectly accurate, then they would all sound the same. Hence, any sonic "signiture" must be a deviation from accuracy aimed at attracting attention. Thats what "voicing" always meant to me. But as with all things Audiophool, there is no real deffinition -its whatever you want it to mean. That lets us argue ad-infinitum about things which have no meaning and no end to the possibilities for argument.
As I am fond of saying, if all speakers were perfectly accurate, then they would all sound the same. Hence, any sonic "signiture" must be a deviation from accuracy aimed at attracting attention. Thats what "voicing" always meant to me. But as with all things Audiophool, there is no real deffinition -its whatever you want it to mean. That lets us argue ad-infinitum about things which have no meaning and no end to the possibilities for argument.
Last edited:
I wonder whether you have a copy to show us the response curve of this "Taunus" sound, it would interesting to compare it against others.
Amazingly I can't find any response curves of those speakers like the Canton LE 900 or Quinto xxx. It was an emphasis of the upper bass region around 100 Hz and the tweeter region. It was quite the opposite of the "english" sound of that time. It has been pointed out, that this "zisch-boom" (onomatopoeia) sound didn't show up in the direct response graph as much as in the diffuse field response. Like overcompensation of the baffle step combined with turning from an already beaming cone midrange to a dome tweeter ...
Rudolf
Amen but there's one good reason for "voicing" a speaker: equal-loudness contours.
Nonetheless this should be handled dynamically by the pre-amp.
"Amen"!? Is it still Sunday in Switzerland?
Yes, even Toole buys the idea of changing bass levels with output levels, but calibration is an issue. He (and I) don't find any support for "loudness" compensation at Mid to High freqs however.
Yes, even Toole buys the idea of changing bass levels with output levels, but calibration is an issue. He (and I) don't find any support for "loudness" compensation at Mid to High freqs however.
Well, no conclusive studies are available and those that might have done a more thorough investigation keep a lid on their findings (Dolby, Audyssey).
Here's what the Audyssey loudness compensation looks like with pink noise (0dB = movie reference level):
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
P.S. Every day feels like Sunday in Switzerland.
Enjoy it while it lasts. Aren't they discussing to chase those impertinent Germans off their alps? 😉
- Status
- Not open for further replies.