This was very interesting for me, to understand a little more how our (My ?) brains are processing.
No problem with the original recording. As long as the copies were intelligible, i was surprised by several things.
- No huge modification of the original tonal balance: The system (speakers+ recording mike) used looks very linear. It not often the case.
- The ability our brain use to separate the original sound from the room's resonnances.
There is a lot of videos, on youtube where you can listen to speakers playing music, recorded via a camera mike. It is very interesting how it enlighten all the defects of the speakers.
I noticed a huge difference between horns and cones in the way they excite rooms resonnances. Only few horns, in very punctual mike's localisation where able to make the system forgotten.
The most obvious was recordings of some those very expensive Wilson Audio speakers. And the way they excite room's resonnances. Nothing natural.
YouTube
YouTube
And the differences with horns systems:
YouTube
YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cB7w4hTJank
Noticed too, that all the manufacturers tend to design a response curve with too much unnatural treeble (Hihi sound) and prefer ... to talk and talk about their systems, than makes us listen to them this way ;-)
If we forget about this (we can 'voice'-them at home, reducing trebble's level)) , it seems obvious horns provide a lot more detailed dynamic and focused sounds.
Last edited:
Tourny,
Using a horn gives a much higher direct to reverberant field ratio. In many listening conditions speech intelligibilty becomes adequate when the direct field is equal to or greater than the reverberant field.
Horns direct the sound to the area of the listener. If nothing else the listener provides so acoustic energy absorption. Non horn systems hit many more surfaces, such as hard ceilings which contribute to the reverberant field.
Using a horn gives a much higher direct to reverberant field ratio. In many listening conditions speech intelligibilty becomes adequate when the direct field is equal to or greater than the reverberant field.
Horns direct the sound to the area of the listener. If nothing else the listener provides so acoustic energy absorption. Non horn systems hit many more surfaces, such as hard ceilings which contribute to the reverberant field.
As the topic of accuracy recently was mentioned I remembered that the idea to use an anechoic room was already presented in the early 80s:
https://abload.de/img/salmi_weckstrom_listexujfb.gif
LISTENING ROOM INFLUENCE ON LOUDSPEAKER
SOUND QUALITY AND WAYS OF MINIMIZING IT
Jorma Salmi, Anders Weckström, Lohja Corporation Electronics,Finland
1871 (F-4), 1982, AES 71st Convention, 1982 March 2-5 Montreux
https://abload.de/img/salmi_weckstrom_listexujfb.gif
LISTENING ROOM INFLUENCE ON LOUDSPEAKER
SOUND QUALITY AND WAYS OF MINIMIZING IT
Jorma Salmi, Anders Weckström, Lohja Corporation Electronics,Finland
1871 (F-4), 1982, AES 71st Convention, 1982 March 2-5 Montreux
Some people might have better synapse firing for more accurate extrapolation?
I suppose that’s a different frame of mind for me.......like when listening to an old recording that Matt posts all the time, I know there is no better recording and must rely on my imagination.
But, during a critical listening/test session, if the sound is not there in the first place I’m always looking, knowing something isn’t there that should be, and when it’s found my brain can finally relax and just about shut off. That’s how I know a ‘correct’ sound......when I’m no longer looking for it.
And yahhhh......correct only for me, but I’ve also dedicated much more time educating myself in this area than most of the masses so I’m confident my correct is up in the 90 percentile range.
Last edited:
Of course. But I believe there is more than this.
With conventional speakers, it is hard to avoid the use of several ways to reproduce the most critical audio frequencies: medium->trebble. With all the phase turn problems and time alignment that comes with, both acoustically and electronically. Horns allow to use a single device from 700 to 16000 with no "break".
The advantages are obvious on the way each detail is separated and like under a magnifier, compared to conventional cones. Micro dynamic.
On the examples i provided, I was happy to be comforted in my choices. I use a single driver+horn, response curve equalized by passive network and no tweeter. Same kind of quality than the RCA without their accident in the response curve. While all the horns + tweeter i know are not so natural.
Why the audiophiles do want those unnatural shining trebles ?
Last, in average listening rooms, a flat response curve is bad. Too much treble as well. We need slowly descending curves for a natural reproduction.
It is a pity that industry have favorized cones, and made horns so "exclusive" and expensive. Producing large-scale molded horns (spherical waves) would not cost much, and the drivers could even be cheaper than cone loudspeakers. And because their efficiency is so high, we could all use class A amps, cheaper as well !!!!
it is like in the car industry. If we had not took the wrong way (thermic engines) we would all be driving today in silent electric cars, changing our batteries in the gas stations as we refuel, and we would be less worried about global warming and air pollution. The first car was electric (La Jamais contente) and the first speakers were horns.
Last edited:
TT ,
This is where my setup ends up in room @ LP , one of my test tracks averaged over the complete track.
I’ve posted this before and people commented “your tweeter is unplugged” !
But there is no lack of treble I assure you......this where it sounds most natural.
To get this avg db there are peaks 112db+ at LP.....this will let you know what a recording is made of!
This is where my setup ends up in room @ LP , one of my test tracks averaged over the complete track.
I’ve posted this before and people commented “your tweeter is unplugged” !
But there is no lack of treble I assure you......this where it sounds most natural.
To get this avg db there are peaks 112db+ at LP.....this will let you know what a recording is made of!
Attachments
Your approach seems right to me.
That makes all the difference between people that fear their ears with some culture that make them understand what they hear, and people that "believe" exclusively in measurements. That i did first, wanting a response curve up to 40000Hz.
My tweeter is really unplugged, now. On purpose. I first thought it was because my age, so I asked young musicians to confirm. They did.
Many good speaker manufacturers know-it as well. But it is not as good for the sales than a flat curve.
And i'm not sure most "audiophile" like a transparent system, but, rather, an impressive one.
Last edited:
Bateman's papers address the question. The effects of dielectric absorption as reflected in harmonic distorsion measurements become smaller when the DC component of the signal is close to 0 V.
An other way to consider that should not be forgotten : an unsufficient quality of the tweeter.
I don’t know but hav3 to ask, this app obviously assumes that the mobile mic response has been calibrated or do you have to cal it in some way?
It’s a Dayton imm-6, they have a calibration file i downloaded.
It’s probably not precisely accurate but it’s good enough for quick comparisons.
My next step is going to be into Dirac (or similar) with a good mic and graphic charting, but for the money the imm-6 is a cool little tool.
It’s probably not precisely accurate but it’s good enough for quick comparisons.
My next step is going to be into Dirac (or similar) with a good mic and graphic charting, but for the money the imm-6 is a cool little tool.
Attachments
Last edited:
As you say, horns were first speakers because of their efficiency, not because of sound quality in small rooms
Why not?
Was eyeballing those 21” OB drivers that John Busch had in the swap meet (gone now) I’ll bet those
could get pretty close to a live kick!
When was the last time you heard a hard hitting drummer in a living room? Yould be running for the ear plugs, unless you like losing hearing. And your neighbours wont be very happy.
I’ve known several that have, oldest son still has a set in his dining room (where his band practices) and heard them last time I was back in NC not long ago.....granted it gets loud but no worse than a small bar. You must be city folk? All worried about the neighbors n’such.......most of the next doors are at the practice every weds night!
Edit.....they do hang thick Persian style rugs on the walls behind and underneath the drums if that makes you feel any better.
Edit.....they do hang thick Persian style rugs on the walls behind and underneath the drums if that makes you feel any better.
Last edited:
This is one of many readings I took of an NFL stadium 70,000 + seating capacity. (Actually one of the worst seats in the place!)
Note the effect of the sunscreen on the response, particularly the diaphragmatic absorption peaking at 100 hertz.
The air losses of course are enormous at high frequencies, approaching 20 dB at 100 feet. But only 3 dB down at 10,000 hertz, quite good for a venue this size.
Note the effect of the sunscreen on the response, particularly the diaphragmatic absorption peaking at 100 hertz.
The air losses of course are enormous at high frequencies, approaching 20 dB at 100 feet. But only 3 dB down at 10,000 hertz, quite good for a venue this size.
Attachments
Last edited:
When I started my very first rock group, we rehearsed in the living room of the apartment of the drummer's parents. We took turn sharing the space with another band where the drummer's brother played. But that was long ago.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.