My perspective here is that most speakers fail to resolve a significant amount of information (rooms naturally play a role here). A clearer lens to a less-than-stellar recording does make the issues more audible, but also improves clarity on the other parts that get missed by lesser systems.
For example, say you have an overly rich recording with lots of natural or artifical reverb. On a lesser system that makes the whole recording sound like mushy echoes, on a cleaner system you hear the flaw more clearly, but it now sounds like what it is, extra echo, instead of being as impactful on the overall presentation. You're better able to focus on the part you want.
^ Yes Scottjoplin i think we all agree about better system ( or we wouldn't be there discussing all these things) and their outcome.
Let me give an other example to about lesser quality making the source more averaged : broadcast and radio in particular.
All broadcast station does have a 'in house' treatment chain applyed before sending signal to transmitter. It mostly consist of compressor, eq, expander sometimes some mastering all 'in one box' or trickery effects.
The purpose is to give a 'signature sound' to make the station apart from concurence, have the higher overall rms level ( as study from the 50's showed that the higher the rms level the more listeners get hooked on the radio station... which led to the loudness war) and at the same time lesser the difference in quality between tracks.
If you play a very good produced track on this kind of chain it'll be of a lesser quality for sure. If you play a bad one it could sound 'better' ( i really doubt about the 'better' part but let's assume that).
In fine both track will sound mediocre but they'll translate to the outside world the same way.
I think this is same,thing happening with 'bad' loudspeakers. In french we have an expression about that:
'Nivellement par le bas' ( leveling thru lower treshold - threshold with a notion of lower quality).
Does it matter to the end user? For most of them no they just don't care. For some yes. We are this one, but overall we are a few.
Off topic: Scottjoplin your question about 'poor recordings' does have a lot of sense but i think it is to large to answer here. Maybe an other thread could be started about that point? If you are interested i could send you again the audiofile for you to judge about my comment. Pm me if you want to.
Let me give an other example to about lesser quality making the source more averaged : broadcast and radio in particular.
All broadcast station does have a 'in house' treatment chain applyed before sending signal to transmitter. It mostly consist of compressor, eq, expander sometimes some mastering all 'in one box' or trickery effects.
The purpose is to give a 'signature sound' to make the station apart from concurence, have the higher overall rms level ( as study from the 50's showed that the higher the rms level the more listeners get hooked on the radio station... which led to the loudness war) and at the same time lesser the difference in quality between tracks.
If you play a very good produced track on this kind of chain it'll be of a lesser quality for sure. If you play a bad one it could sound 'better' ( i really doubt about the 'better' part but let's assume that).
In fine both track will sound mediocre but they'll translate to the outside world the same way.
I think this is same,thing happening with 'bad' loudspeakers. In french we have an expression about that:
'Nivellement par le bas' ( leveling thru lower treshold - threshold with a notion of lower quality).
Does it matter to the end user? For most of them no they just don't care. For some yes. We are this one, but overall we are a few.
Off topic: Scottjoplin your question about 'poor recordings' does have a lot of sense but i think it is to large to answer here. Maybe an other thread could be started about that point? If you are interested i could send you again the audiofile for you to judge about my comment. Pm me if you want to.
Last edited:
I would think that for mixing and/or mastering you would not want to include any dips around 1-4 KHz to the speakers used. You're just trying to create the perfect composition on known good tools.
I find that for my purpose, using speakers at home I get benefits from tweaks like that. But that is catered to have the most pleasurable sound I can get. I also use a virtual Haas Kicker, as I don't have the room to do it with diffusive panels etc. But you wouldn't want to use that in a studio either, as it does tend to make everything sound a little better (if used sparingly).
Purpose build speakers for content creation should be as honest as possible. Measurably good would be my choice. Catering for pleasurable home replay may deviate from that.
Fully agree with you Wesayso. At home everything is good as long as it fullfill your preference. And trust me and i already said it to you but most professional place would kill for the results you have. Really impressive work!
Camplo as you are talking about filter you should have a look at Wesayso thread about his linesource. This is a lot of inspiration to have! ( and a lot of reading! A bit like a good novel with thrill, romance and nice outcome! Or a endless story it depends your pov! As good as this one in my view!
).
Last edited:
Yeah, it doesn't exactly make sense to me either.
But here's my observations and reasoning...
First, to back up, I've been talking about smear just from the cone sections, the 15" coaxial vs a straight 12" cone. Not the comparative CD sections.
When I measure them both, the 15coax shows considerably more un-smoothed hash.
It also has reduced coherence, which is a measure of "sameness" between the input and output.
Been taught that reduced coherence predominantly comes from multiple sources producing the same frequency.
I've found whenever a measurement shows reduced coherence, corrections made via FIR files tend not to take so well.
When coherence is high, it is quite easy to correct to near perfect mag and phase traces, even devoid of any smoothing.
Of course this is to a single spot, but the point is, when coherence is lower, it can't be done easily even to a single spot.
Another reason coherence can be low is due to chaotic/changing output, or shifting time, such as a mic moving due to wind.
Maybe the 15coax cone has some kind of changing output with the CD stuck in the middle...dunno.
If so, i think it kinda invalidates the multiple points or origin theory. I've been picturing sound having slightly different paths coming around the CD...alot like different paths/reflections coming out of a conical horn.
In any case, the 15coax sounds a little softer, a little more diffuse, with the same tuning..
Can you tell i'm looking for a unifying simpleton theory?
Don't know if it qualifies as a 'unifying simpleton theory', but in my simpleminded way it all makes sense/comes into focus for me when I visualize it from its theoretically infinite number of eigenmodes POV due to being round and how badly the HF horn disrupts them relative to the single set of just a woofer, especially when the it's square or rectangular.
GM
GM
I'd love to see some actual data on this as I have never really looked at anything like this.
Coherence means "the amount of the output energy that is due to (correlated with) the input." Maybe this is "sameness" but I am not sure that this is the best way to think about it. Normally lower coherence is due to noise and nonlinearities. An FDIR filter could only ever correct that part of the signal that is coherent so a low coherence means that the "correction" will also be poor.
Multiple sources do not necessarily lead to low coherence, although they could if the secondary source is not "tied to" the source DUT. An early reflection for example will not lower the coherence until the delay become longer or the reflections become numerous.
Coherence has been shown in many cases to be correlated to sound quality, unfortunately its not a one-to-one situation. There are cases that do not follow this rule, so it's kind of a hit or miss thing. Like THD and iMD - sometimes they affect sound quality but other times they don't. It takes getting into the details deeper to sort things out.
Linear breakup modes will NOT lower coherence. They have to be nonlinear to do that, which can occur, but it is the exception, not the norm.
Here's a snip from the Smaartlive manual...the software I'm using that has coherence. https://www.rationalacoustics.com/download/Smaart-v8-User-Guide.pdf
Coherence
Coherence is a statistical estimation of the causality or linearity between the reference and measurement
signals in a transfer function measurement. Coherence does a good job of detecting
contamination of the measurement signal by unrelated signals such as background noise and reverberation,
and it is sensitive to timing mismatches as well. We use it in Smaart to gauge the quality of transfer
function measurement data, frequency by frequency, in real time. Additionally, since the same factors
that affect coherence (mainly noise and reverberation) also affect speech intelligibility, the coherence
trace can also give you a sense of how intelligible a system is.
The coherence calculation essentially asks the question, “How confident can we be that what we are
seeing in the measurement signal at this frequency was caused by the reference signal?” The answer is a
number between zero and one, which Smaart displays as a percentage. A value of 100% indicates perfect
correlation between the two signals and zero means there is no discernable relationship between
them.
In nuts and bolts terms, coherence works by comparing the cross-spectrum (the frequency-domain
representation of a cross-correlation) of the reference and measurement signals to the product of their
averaged power spectra. That means it must be calculated across multiple readings of the two signals in
order to be meaningful. If you looked at just a single reading of any pair of signals, coherence would
always be 100% for all frequencies, and so the feature turns itself off when averaging is not in use.
You will no doubt be able to understand what the 'nuts and bolts' mean; I don't yet fully understand the comparison. Just took my second training class on the software...could use a few more sessions
What you said about coherence does all make sense to me, though. That much i get. I misspoke when I said I've been taught coherence lowers due to reflections...should have said reverb. Didn't mention noise as the primary culprit because i kinda take that as a given for any measurement.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding from those who have not heard extraordinary systems. The "I want bad recordings to sound bad" trope is common and quite understandable - if you haven't heard what can be done. I know that comes across as condescending, but it is not meant to be. Extraordinary systems are rare, but definition. I've heard them, but only come close to owning one after many years of effort.
First: Once frequency and power response get better you will find that the things that bothered you about the "bad" recordings don't' bother you as much any more. Sure, the recording is still flawed, and you'll hear that. But when the speaker and room are contributing nasties to the sound, funky recordings won't hurt your ears as much. You'll hear the music, not the faults. Most of us here have heard that.
Second: Pushing beyond response, when other things like diffraction, resonances and so on are under control an amazing world starts to open up. At this point not only will the annoyances of frequency response fall way but noise will sit in a different space. It's tangible. This is an uncanny thing when you hear it. LP surface noise, tape hiss, buzzes and other artifacts will occupy a different place in the 3D space. They do because they are in a different space. Since almost all systems mash all the sounds together into a big past, you don't imagine that noise could sit apart from the music. But once you hear it, you quickly understand how they can. When the noise and other defects are detached from the music, they become less intrusive and easier to ignore. You hear them, but they don't get in the way of the music. Sure, the recorded music may have limited dynamic and frequency range but it still comes thru as a thing apart from the defects - a living thing to enjoy. You'll hear the faults, but they don't get in the way.
Many of us have heard the first effect, very few of us have heard the second because it's extremely rare. They nice thing is, it isn't a brick wall. You can get there bit by bit. It isn't that an extraordinary system will make a bad recording good - it's that you are able to easily hear the music past the fault because the music and the faults and the music are no longer mixed together. The faults being separate become easy to ignore. It's a wonderful thing. Rare, but wonderful.
Sometimes when peeling the onion it will get worse before it gets better and you need know when to push forward rather than rewind.
This is very interesting to me as you seem to be explaining something I’ve been trying to define for some time now.
My system is far from extraordinary BUT with over a year of tweaking drivers, xo components,dsp settings,and assorted other things related to the actual sound at LP there was a something that started to reveal itself that I described a couple times as being ‘in a snow globe’ with the music, almost as if the music,the room, and yourself are a single entity.
The sound takes over physically and emotionally to a point where everything else disappears and a state of slight euphoria ensues, researching this led me to ASMR (also described as ‘brain orgasm’ ‘brain tingle’ etc) .......you can ‘feel’ the midrange/highs much as you would bass but in a tingly sensation between your ear and brain. When this is dialed I can listen quite loud (100db avg @ lp) with no ill effects.
I find subtle changes in anything that has to do with phase matching can bring this in and out of focus, it’s very elusive and in my case most variable with dsp in a active/passive hybrid xo in a 2 way + subs system.
I think some over on the ‘lounge’ have found my exploits on the edge of insanity but like you said unless you experience this it’s quite hard to fathom.
If you could elaborate more on this it’d be much appreciated.
Thanks,
Bob
I like what you have said here. Your description sounds like “the greatest” ability, as I said I am trying to reach, except for the areas of “sounding bad” where “bad” becomes subject and not so much blatant, yet the material parts are not hidden, instead clearly revealed, but not in a manner that would immediately invoke a sonic dissonance. This is tight rope someone spoke of I think. That’s true to a grand scale. I do have a focus towards a certain aspect of “bad”. Dynamic Contrast. In threads shortly precious we went into detail about what I meant about the term. If I can achieve this, I will be happy and the other benefits I achieve with proper design will icing on the cake.
Camplo,
I’ve enjoyed your thread immensely and am a 2 way fan myself.
If what pano referenced is the same as what I’m experiencing I’m not sure how that would correlate to a studio monitor situation......I think it’s more a fine tuning of playback vs environment (lp/room).
I can say this though when I have this effect dialed the level of realism is crazy!
Edit......it also seems ‘across the board’ as in the inferior recordings take on a listenable quality making one think ‘ahhh that’s what they were going for’ instead of ‘what were they thinking’ !
I’ve enjoyed your thread immensely and am a 2 way fan myself.
If what pano referenced is the same as what I’m experiencing I’m not sure how that would correlate to a studio monitor situation......I think it’s more a fine tuning of playback vs environment (lp/room).
I can say this though when I have this effect dialed the level of realism is crazy!
Edit......it also seems ‘across the board’ as in the inferior recordings take on a listenable quality making one think ‘ahhh that’s what they were going for’ instead of ‘what were they thinking’ !
Last edited:
A clear window on the recording? My speakers aren't highly directional, but I listen nearfield which seems to do the trick for me.
I cannot fathom what are the quantitative variables than can objectively ascend a system to the second category mentioned. A combination of ±1 db room FR, minimum (what is minimum?) diffraction and closest to perfect polars? Or is it a combination of equipment and psychoacoustics that elevates our perception of sound quality and subsequently music pleasure?
I do not own a truly hi-end system but i feel familiar with the notion that Pano and mountainman bob describe, and that feeling occured after emotionally gratifying events, e.g. after meeting a new partner, finishing a huge work project or even drinking some wine.