When it comes to communications theory one can say that an information channel that is less distributive in the time domain has the larger information capacity than an otherwise equal (bandwidth, noise and nonlinearity) but more distributive one. I don't know whether this applies to speakers or not. But I pay attention to it. I don't go for "transient perfect" anymore nowadays but I use crossovers with less group delay distortion than LR4 for instance.
Regards
Charles
Regards
Charles
It doesn't seem to matter so it doesn't do any harm either. On the other hand, what certainly does matter are the inner resonances of suboptimally terminated horns.
Besides that, any horn equalized to the same acoustic frequency response will show the same group delay, i.e. the same waveform distortion. That's just not an argument.
Besides that, any horn equalized to the same acoustic frequency response will show the same group delay, i.e. the same waveform distortion. That's just not an argument.
Last edited:
I like to think of 'what matters' in relative terms, as in what will provide the greatest marginal improvement in my speaker sounding more realistic.
For me, i've been hearing greater marginal gains from pursuing transient perfect response, than I have from trying to reduce internal horn resonances or dissipate improperly terminated mouths. Particularly so, at as low in frequency as possible,
And this is on synergy horns, which heaven knows have a lot of horn issues.
That said however, it's possible that the work i do to achieve transient perfect response, is also helping reduce whatever horn internal resonances or termination issues there are, that are truly minimum phase. You know, FIR-type impulse inversion as appropriate.
Risk of that type work being, i might also be incorrectly fixing non-minimum phase horn issues....which is why i look for transient perfect across as wide of set of off-axis measurements, as seems possible.
Anyway, again i'd say what matters is relative.
When a truly optimal horn is achieved, will transient perfect then begin to matter as a frontier for marginal improvement?
Or will it take a truly optimal full-range speaker system, one that is refined as what was achieved with the optimal horn? Will transient perfect response become a frontier then?
I think such a refined speaker has been missing in prior research concerning phase/group delay audibility.
(Let's face it, all "transient perfect" really means is flat mag and phase acoustic transfers).
Headphone studies don't begin to cut it...they can't impart low frequency dynamics.
Good statistical phase audibility work needs to be done outdoors with speakers capable of realistic SPL, dynamics, and bass extension.....that have flat mag and phase.
That is the straight ruler speaker, that phase rotations/warps and timing misalignments have to be compared to, imho.
Anything short of that straight ruler is comparing one crooked speaker to another crooked speaker.. hey, back to relative.
If such a well done study concluded transient perfect isn't audible, or better, defined it's thresholds, well then I'm believer...but not until then
Most horns are suboptimally terminated, yet not all of them sound or measure poorly.
Mark, those are meaningful musings. In fact, everything in audio (and beyond) is relative.
It is the observer (listener) who ultimately interprets and appreciates, isn't it?
The hypothetically perfect synergy horn may sound terrible to someone who has only listened to direct radiating towers (think Revel Salon 2).
It is the observer (listener) who ultimately interprets and appreciates, isn't it?
The hypothetically perfect synergy horn may sound terrible to someone who has only listened to direct radiating towers (think Revel Salon 2).
The "sound" is subjective, so let's discount that. If they measure poorly then they cannot be said to be "optimal.
My take on "transient perfect", after much study, is this: it is a factor, but a small one. It's most likely is not a factor until the system has great polar and axial behavior. Until this later is achieved, phase irregularities are likely masked by the other problems.
I had completely discounted phase as an issue until I decided to actually measure the acoustic phase in my speakers. I found that the excess GD was very small from a few 100 Hz up and so I thought "perhaps that's part of what makes them sound so good." Not proof, but evidence.
Thanks Roland,
Yep, I like to think the purpose of objective audio, is essentially trying to maximize subjective audio.
And for sure, it's our to like what type speaker we like, and dislike what we don't
(just so folks don't think i'm completely wed to synergies, i have traditional speakers, electrostats, and omnis, all setup and running, with enjoyment.
Hope to get the line arrays back in action soon, too)
This almost seems contradictory but I grant words can be a little ambiguous sometimes.
I don't believe you need transient perfect, you can still transcend what is audible. However a variety of acoustic issues can manifest in phase.. but then it's a symptom and not the cause.
I tend to agree. However, that statement opens up another can of worms.
Which (measurement) data matter, according to which conventions?
Can you rule out exemptions and more importantly: contradictions?
Statistics is the best evaluation tool we have in science and it's far from waterproof.
Try it for yourself, it's not that hard. You will need to measure though (to actually know at least something).Does coincidence exist?
2 metaphysical brain teasers:
Coincidence is translated in my mother tongue as 'toeval', which literally means 'to attribute', or 'to allocate' (something to someone/something).
'Universe' can be translated 'heelal', which literally means 'whole all' and is occasionally illustrated with this symbol:
Never underestimate the power of symbolism. We have increasingly been bombarded by it over the past 2 years and that's an euphemism.
But what exactly is 'infinity'? Does/can infinity actually exist?
Perhaps the Ouboros (infinity) symbol illustrates a cyclical, an ongoing/repetitive proces of creation and decay > consider waves and conservation of energy/information.
This is one way to look at it:
Time thus becomes 'life time', a periodic event.
Big Bang... does the concept even make any sense? A big bang, emerged from what?
Anyway, given the ancient microcosm-macrocosm analogy, similar phenomena can be observed at the atomic level,
evidently with few degrees of freedom
A few toroids were shown already. I bet many of us have wondered whether the interior of a (horn) torus would be suitable as horn.
Based on a somewhat alternative/novel, analysis of macrocosmic and quantum phenomena I derived one.
It's not identical to a (horn) torus, because based on electron (trajectory) shells.
The parametric equations are quite simple. A moderately talented mathematician should be able to replicate it from his head just by looking at it.
So, does it work?
(Sims courtsey of DonVK)
Nothing groundbreaking, but not particularly bad either. Loading properties are disappointing, probably due to the flare rate near the throat.
Coincidence is translated in my mother tongue as 'toeval', which literally means 'to attribute', or 'to allocate' (something to someone/something).
'Universe' can be translated 'heelal', which literally means 'whole all' and is occasionally illustrated with this symbol:
Never underestimate the power of symbolism. We have increasingly been bombarded by it over the past 2 years and that's an euphemism.
But what exactly is 'infinity'? Does/can infinity actually exist?
Perhaps the Ouboros (infinity) symbol illustrates a cyclical, an ongoing/repetitive proces of creation and decay > consider waves and conservation of energy/information.
This is one way to look at it:
Time thus becomes 'life time', a periodic event.
Big Bang... does the concept even make any sense? A big bang, emerged from what?
Anyway, given the ancient microcosm-macrocosm analogy, similar phenomena can be observed at the atomic level,
evidently with few degrees of freedom
A few toroids were shown already. I bet many of us have wondered whether the interior of a (horn) torus would be suitable as horn.
Based on a somewhat alternative/novel, analysis of macrocosmic and quantum phenomena I derived one.
It's not identical to a (horn) torus, because based on electron (trajectory) shells.
The parametric equations are quite simple. A moderately talented mathematician should be able to replicate it from his head just by looking at it.
So, does it work?
(Sims courtsey of DonVK)
Nothing groundbreaking, but not particularly bad either. Loading properties are disappointing, probably due to the flare rate near the throat.
Last edited:
True, but that could be said of all evidence.
It's only when there is a preponderance of it that we can conclude it's not coincidence. I would say that there is not a preponderance of evidence, but there is certainly more than just my anecdote.
Yes, it does make sense, and it is correct. "From what?" is an open question that will not likely ever be resolved (surely not in our lifetimes.)
The diagrams that you show are identical to the polar radiation modes that are used in Klippel's and my near-field modal expansion. Radially, the equations for electron orbits and sound radiation are identical and those are solutions to both.
I have suggested this many times in the past.
You could easily introduce an additional all-pass filter electronically into an existing system and listen what difference that makes. People have made such experiments, me included. That would be the real science
- I'm a fan of the Big Bounce, especially the part that we're living inside a black hole, makes perfect sense to me
Last edited:
The "big bounce" is purely a hypothesis with no real supporting evidence. It came about from sting theory, which is now in serious trouble and in disrepute.
I don't do acoustics anymore, but I am aware of the tests that you refer to. In my own work we found non-minimum phase to be audible (as has Brian Moore) in controlled experiments. That's another piece of evidence. But again, it's a small effect that will likely be difficult to isolate, making the experiments difficult to do. Perhaps in your tests (and others) the effects were masked by other problems.
I don't do acoustics anymore, but I am aware of the tests that you refer to. In my own work we found non-minimum phase to be audible (as has Brian Moore) in controlled experiments. That's another piece of evidence. But again, it's a small effect that will likely be difficult to isolate, making the experiments difficult to do. Perhaps in your tests (and others) the effects were masked by other problems.
We're talking about "transient perfect" versus an ordinary all-pass typically encountered in loudspeaker crossovers. Of course you could synthetize a phase distortion that would be audible to any degree desired.
Anyway, Nikodem Popławski has a nice story. I'm afraid that all cosmological hypotheses won't ever be anything more than just a stories we like or not. That would be my bet. Look at cosmology, it almost goes backwards - the more we try, the less we understand.
Anyway, Nikodem Popławski has a nice story. I'm afraid that all cosmological hypotheses won't ever be anything more than just a stories we like or not. That would be my bet. Look at cosmology, it almost goes backwards - the more we try, the less we understand.
Yea, that's not really true. We understand a lot more now than we have in the past - by a huge amount. It is true that the more we learn the more questions that evolve, but that is not the same as "the less we really understand."
To me, and maybe not to others, transient perfect includes all the phase effects, not just crossover ones.