graaf said:
Accuracy is just another seduction. The original recording, more often than not, is as natural as a sausage. If you value accuracy above other things, by all means, pursue that.
I think accuracy is a laughable concept. I worked in recording studios for many years, and the topic never even came up. All those precious recordings were made with $400 Yamaha NS-10 monitors, usually with a piece of Kleenex taped over the tweeter. Kleenex and scotch tape! So much for accuracy.
Then the mixes went off to a mastering facility where they added a bit more EQ and compression. The amount was often subtle and pleasing. Nobody cared about accuracy -- everyone just wanted it to sound good on a car radio.
I find it funny that people would spend so much more on speakers than what the original microphones cost. Is there any point to spending $20k on speakers to reproduce a recording which was made with $100 microphones? Just a thought!
rjbond3rd said:
Certainly a point, although in fairness, it's worth remembering that a loudspeaker does have a harder job than a microphone. Think about the amount of air it has to shift, without distortion; the way it has to rebuild a convincing representation of a performance & often the acoustic it was recorded in, the interaction between it & other components which tend to be more dramatic than those of a low-level component. Not that I'm suggesting a mic. has an easy task of it; just that a speaker has to work harder.
So yes, I would say there are unquestionably benefits to putting a little effort into your speakers; ensuring they have a reasonably flat response, detailing etc., especially over the critical telephone band.
Scottmoose said:
Hi Scottmoose, hmm -- I've always thought the reverse because the microphone has to be so sensitive. But you're right that the speaker has all those complex interactions with cabinet, stuffing, baffle, diffraction etc.
Graaf, please don't think I'm discouraging your quest -- certainly it's a good idea to get rid of distortion and listen to what's left, and certainly it's good if the speaker is able to reproduce the information in the recording to the highest degree possible.
I just quibble with the word "accuracy," when applied to recordings which are so artificially created and carefully mixed for bad speakers and radio. But maybe you are listening to some extremely high-quality recordings, as many people here are.
very true, accuracy...................
read a lot on perhaps too much accuracy?
some like the scanspeak 9500 best while other perfer the 9700 (no ferrofluid which I'd imagine robs detail)............
I had a system that depending on my mood, lincoln park was totally unlistenable !!!!!!!!!!!!
yea accuracy....................
that recording chain probably has over 100 opamps in the signal path....and electrolystic caps...... let alone cables, and the worst, compressors !!!!!!!!
yea true microphones can cost bundles...................
accuracy.........there is a loaded term.
I had a system I loved, thought it did drums well, untill I heard some at a music store, 4 15's and 4 18's (500-80hz and 18's 80hz down) was better than I ever had but still not even close...........
seems funny that peoples systems become more accurate (detailed?) that more and more of their system becomes unlistenable..............
Norman
read a lot on perhaps too much accuracy?
some like the scanspeak 9500 best while other perfer the 9700 (no ferrofluid which I'd imagine robs detail)............
I had a system that depending on my mood, lincoln park was totally unlistenable !!!!!!!!!!!!
yea accuracy....................
that recording chain probably has over 100 opamps in the signal path....and electrolystic caps...... let alone cables, and the worst, compressors !!!!!!!!
yea true microphones can cost bundles...................
accuracy.........there is a loaded term.
I had a system I loved, thought it did drums well, untill I heard some at a music store, 4 15's and 4 18's (500-80hz and 18's 80hz down) was better than I ever had but still not even close...........
seems funny that peoples systems become more accurate (detailed?) that more and more of their system becomes unlistenable..............
Norman
Sure there is. $20k speakers will most likely sound better than $2k speakers, does not matter how cheap the microphone was used. If someone can efford it, its fine with me. /I know few people whose income exceeds million a year and their bonus is $300k/
The same with cars. The purpose is to get you from point A to point B. Some spent $12k on the car, some $120k. There certainly is a big difference how you get from point A to point B.
If there was not the point....we would all have the same cars and speakers.
"Sure there is. $20k speakers will most likely sound better than $2k speakers" and I've heard a few impressive cheap systems that smoke 20k+ systems.
true, but that doesn't impress me..............
I like 10% cost for 90% sound quality...............
or making silk purse from a sows ear...........
that's impressive
I've heard time aligned and even estats impress me more in certain ways than some giat 20k stuff.
A better driver is a better driver, no doubt there.
Implementation, crossover, etc go a long way..............
Norman
true, but that doesn't impress me..............
I like 10% cost for 90% sound quality...............
or making silk purse from a sows ear...........
that's impressive
I've heard time aligned and even estats impress me more in certain ways than some giat 20k stuff.
A better driver is a better driver, no doubt there.
Implementation, crossover, etc go a long way..............
Norman
rjbond3rd said:
I'm probably late to the party as far as the mikes vs speakers issue is concerned, but how many modern recordings that most of us listen to were made with less than dozens of individual mikes (or at least a similar number of multi-tracked/overdubbed channels)?
How many of those mikes were required to capture the full dynamic range, frequency spectrum and stereo "soundstage", and of the few that might be capable of that, how many of cost $100?
chrisb said:
Hi Chrisb, no you're right on time and we've saved you a beer and a seat. I only meant to say that a lot of recordings are butchered in the studio with all kinds of non-hifi stuff, so the word "accurate" might be an odd word to use. But maybe folks here are listening mostly to expertly recorded stuff, in which case, I take it all back.
P.S. OT but the $100 mike I was referring to was the Shure SM57 which is a classic mike for stage or studio for kick drum, toms, guitar cabs etc. It's dynamic (i.e. un-powered) and can take high SPL's and close proximity. A nice vocal mike might cost $3,000 (e.g., Neuman U87 large-diaphram condenser, i.e. powered) but I've seen those get plugged into gear that would make an audiophile cry (in sadness).
Even the kick drum recorded with the $100 mike might end up merely as the trigger for a sample, and even that sample might get slipped forward or back in time, or ultimately synced to a drum machine triggering a mere sample of the same kick drum, or worse, a recognizable factory sample on a drum machine. So after all that, I was quibbling with the word "accurate" because of all the manipulation that is typical, though I grant you it's not happening on Diana Krall or the London Symphony Orchestra. (Or is it? Hmm.)
Even if the mikes are good, you can be fairly sure that the monitors used during tracking (and maybe used as a backup pair during mixing) are crappy but predictable like the Yamaha NS-10's, which would disappoint (and probably irritate) you if used for hifi. The people in the studio really aren't thinking much about hifi so much as radio, at least where I worked. Sorry for blathering!
nobody meant to impress you norman
i was simply discussing the difference the price can brink in improvement of sound quality
and irelevance to mics cost
if somebody can efford to buy expensive speakers its fine with me
btw some of the best recordings were done on cheap mics
/the trinity session from cowboy junkies for instace/
me too!
last time i checked this was a diy forum, so people here diy
including me
i would never spend so much money on speakers, even if i had the money /i'd rather buy sport car........../
i enjoy building speakers
expensive speakers can sound great if done properly
local highend store two blocks from me has numerous expensive speakers i can go and listen to
i like audio artistry's beethoven designed by linkwitz
company is long gone, but speakers are there
i will never make speakers that good, but as you said norman, 90% sound quality for 10% cost........... /you like the dots don't you/
adason = I apologive for any offense.
sometimes it is difficult to type words and context/sarcasm can be easily misunderstood.
Yes I've been slowly gravitating to the more expensive diy stuff.
The law of diminishing returns is a perfect exacple.
People compare the $50 usher tweeter to the scanspeak 9300 ($130 now) sawing usher is a great tweeter but the almost tripple expensive is better. Or even the upgrade to the 9700 ($164) which should be even better having no ferrofluid to absorb some detail.
I've been pretty impressed with a piezo crossed above it's resonance (1038a crossed 24db/octave LR at 5khz).....sound phenominal, cost $10. But hard to cross a piezo to go much under 5khz or else you have to deal with huge resonance that can be trapped out but the time ringing and mixing harmonics are still present.
I like paper cones, detest poly cones, don't like metal kevlar, tolerate fiberglass ones.
Norman
Had a pioneer b20 crossed to piezo at 5khz actively, great system, time aligned/phase aligned, total driver cost = $70
sometimes it is difficult to type words and context/sarcasm can be easily misunderstood.
Yes I've been slowly gravitating to the more expensive diy stuff.
The law of diminishing returns is a perfect exacple.
People compare the $50 usher tweeter to the scanspeak 9300 ($130 now) sawing usher is a great tweeter but the almost tripple expensive is better. Or even the upgrade to the 9700 ($164) which should be even better having no ferrofluid to absorb some detail.
I've been pretty impressed with a piezo crossed above it's resonance (1038a crossed 24db/octave LR at 5khz).....sound phenominal, cost $10. But hard to cross a piezo to go much under 5khz or else you have to deal with huge resonance that can be trapped out but the time ringing and mixing harmonics are still present.
I like paper cones, detest poly cones, don't like metal kevlar, tolerate fiberglass ones.
Norman
Had a pioneer b20 crossed to piezo at 5khz actively, great system, time aligned/phase aligned, total driver cost = $70
rjbond3rd said:
no blather at all sir!
The above post sounds like you may well have been in attendance at a seminar at the recent VSAC show. Many of these issues were discussed by the panel, and further masticated by the audience.
Indeed, I for one piped up on the deplorable state of most of today's major labels releases. The best intentions and skills of the artists on both sides of the mikes can be destroyed by the dumbing down of the sonics to suit the mass market (and lets face it guys, "we" probably represent less than 1% of the total market for retail hard copy and downloaded music files).
The majority of this new generation of consumers for whom music is simply another commodity like mcD burgers or Starbucks coffee have been raised on compressed, sampled, disposable acoustic wallpaper, played back on low grade ghettoblasters, MP3 players etc. Many neither know better or could care - and for however much longer they may last, the manufacturers of such fare are more than happy to cater to these lowered expectations.
whew, rant off
My apologies for any forum members / readers who may be laboring in the salt mines of the modern "music" industry. Of course there is some quality product, both artistically and sonically, but I'd wager I'm not the only one finding this as the exception that proves the rule.
I think that the issue here is what is good enough. Perhaps the B20's and piezo's are good enough. If that's the case, then the discussion is closed. And if $70 is all you can afford and the speakers are good enough, all God's children are happy!
I can afford FE207E's and they make a very good speaker. At $200 a pair, I would have declared them good enough, but I also have a pair of DX2's, now $1000 a pair, and they are much better than the FE207E's. I have heard the DX3's and they are better still. But I can't afford the $1200 today and who knows tomorrow, so for now, the DX2's are good enough.
And the beat goes on.
Bob
I can afford FE207E's and they make a very good speaker. At $200 a pair, I would have declared them good enough, but I also have a pair of DX2's, now $1000 a pair, and they are much better than the FE207E's. I have heard the DX3's and they are better still. But I can't afford the $1200 today and who knows tomorrow, so for now, the DX2's are good enough.
And the beat goes on.
Bob
well said chrisb!
perhaps there should be two or even three categories for each release
lowfi - for car/cellphone/highly compressed mp3
midfi - for average listener on cds
audiofi - for rest of us /reel to reel, lp, dvdaudio/
just like you can buy three types of gas
you should be able to buy your level of music
btw no appology needed norman
chrisb said:
Hi Chrisb, oh I wish I had been there, but I'll see you there next time because I absolutely have to take that amp-building class. In terms of sonics and the music biz, how right you are. Maybe the industry's collapse will be followed by a new era of great music, better recording and ultra-hifi.
Bob Brines said:
Hi Bob, I agree the FE207E's could be good enough forever, especially considering all the cabs available, the tweaks, phase plugs etc. After months of noodling, I'm finally getting gobs of bouncy bass (BR + BSC + lamp cord + the little Dared MP5 tube amp) and there's lots more to try.
Still, when I heard your DX2's at LSAF, I thought, "wow, so that's what the upgrade sounds like." I guess there's always one more upgrade...
rjbond3rd said:
IMO the recording industry as we know it is imploding because do not understand modern playback technology nor how to deliver the product. For the foreseeable future, mass music will be played on iPods or their clones. Hifi will be played on computers. Delivery will be via Internet, 128k MP3 for the masses, FLAC and lossless WMA for hifi. The big music companies have no clue as they try to protect (literally) CD's or produce proprietary formats. The catch is any wanabe with a couple of thousand dollars worth of equipment can put a song on the Internet. You can see this happining in the CD world with all of the niche groups issuing CD's under their own lable.. These people will figure out how to make a buck on the Internet and the majors go away.
Bob
wow, hi bob !!!!!!!!!!
"I think that the issue here is what is good enough. Perhaps the B20's and piezo's are good enough. If that's the case, then the discussion is closed. And if $70 is all you can afford and the speakers are good enough, all God's children are happy!"
That was a few systems ago(and 5 or so years also), but for the price was great.
Paper cone in a 6ft3 box (qtc .577), driver at top so center to center was small as possible. And the pleasant 2nd order harmonic distortion gave it just a bit of punch, and excellent clarity. Wasn't boxy till I put same driver in the recommended 2ft3 sealed size.
But all was not roses.........
The directivity nose dived above 2k untill the piezo took over.
And bass modulates things.
And 4 amplifier channels to do a pair.
And need active crossover (most sound bad).
Suppose planet10 phase plugs would help also.
But I learned a bunch !!!!!!!
I have 3 of the tangband 4" bamboo and even a box to make a short line array.......but carpenter is on strike.
I have a audio nirvana an10 waiting for 4ft3 tuned to 50hz box to be built.
I have 9 tb w3-871s waiting for a focused array box.
Now I'm saving for these 2khz horns by stereo lab
http://cgi.ebay.com/Spheric-Wave-Tr...VQQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp1638Q2em118Q2el1247
going to put a vhf100 (4:1 compression ratio and less mass than tad on it.
and want to put community vhf200 on the 400hz horn by them also (2:1 compression).
Crossing at 2khz,600hz passive line level filter
oh yea.........4 eminence 12's (but they roll below 100hz) already have boxes for those.
Subs ? push pull of course, but unsure what to get.
Can't wait for that system.
Avante garde system for peanuts
and time aligned
I love horns but desire the least horn coloration bringing me to those stereo labs ones.
Grrrrrrr..............
I buy stuff when my stash builds.
Otherwise the "house" consumes my stash............
And then I toss stuff in the closet for "someday" when I'll do something.
Norman
"I think that the issue here is what is good enough. Perhaps the B20's and piezo's are good enough. If that's the case, then the discussion is closed. And if $70 is all you can afford and the speakers are good enough, all God's children are happy!"
That was a few systems ago(and 5 or so years also), but for the price was great.
Paper cone in a 6ft3 box (qtc .577), driver at top so center to center was small as possible. And the pleasant 2nd order harmonic distortion gave it just a bit of punch, and excellent clarity. Wasn't boxy till I put same driver in the recommended 2ft3 sealed size.
But all was not roses.........
The directivity nose dived above 2k untill the piezo took over.
And bass modulates things.
And 4 amplifier channels to do a pair.
And need active crossover (most sound bad).
Suppose planet10 phase plugs would help also.
But I learned a bunch !!!!!!!
I have 3 of the tangband 4" bamboo and even a box to make a short line array.......but carpenter is on strike.
I have a audio nirvana an10 waiting for 4ft3 tuned to 50hz box to be built.
I have 9 tb w3-871s waiting for a focused array box.
Now I'm saving for these 2khz horns by stereo lab
http://cgi.ebay.com/Spheric-Wave-Tr...VQQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp1638Q2em118Q2el1247
going to put a vhf100 (4:1 compression ratio and less mass than tad on it.
and want to put community vhf200 on the 400hz horn by them also (2:1 compression).
Crossing at 2khz,600hz passive line level filter
oh yea.........4 eminence 12's (but they roll below 100hz) already have boxes for those.
Subs ? push pull of course, but unsure what to get.
Can't wait for that system.
Avante garde system for peanuts
and time aligned
I love horns but desire the least horn coloration bringing me to those stereo labs ones.
Grrrrrrr..............
I buy stuff when my stash builds.
Otherwise the "house" consumes my stash............
And then I toss stuff in the closet for "someday" when I'll do something.
Norman
"you should be able to buy your level of music"
well said
"Many neither know better or could care "
so true, too bad people agree that other speakers sound better than bose but still buy bos.
go to go
norman
well said
"Many neither know better or could care "
so true, too bad people agree that other speakers sound better than bose but still buy bos.
go to go
norman
driver spacing in line array
Hi xlr8 i fully support your points.
Using coaxial drivers in a line array does not really make sense
to me. To minimize comb filtering at higher frequencies small
distances between driver centres are to be prefered.
So a separated line of tweeters will work better than a vertical
line of coaxial drivers.
If you prefer fullrange drivers, they should not exceed a certain
size. In my own design i use a combination of electrical power
tapering and power tapering by placement of drivers.
I was beaten in a german forum, because some guys said
"this is not a line array". I don't care anymore.
In fact the construction does not work like a line source
over the whole frequency range. The transition to the far
field is at close listening distances, because only the
upper 3 drivers produce the highs. So this is a line array
allowing listening in the far field, even in a living room.
It is not a near field line array.
Subjectively the sound source is located at the 2. driver from
above.
If you move your ears vertically, the virtual sound
sources do not move like this is the case with traditional near
field line arrays or true line sources like apogee, magnepan etc.
The design works very well. If you don't like dipoles a version
in a closed box would be possible. But the placement of the
drivers is able to compensate baffle step and baffle rolloff as
well to a certain point.
A subwoofer is needed. I use a dipole sub ...
dipole line array
Cheers ... Oliver
xlr8 said:
Hi xlr8 i fully support your points.
Using coaxial drivers in a line array does not really make sense
to me. To minimize comb filtering at higher frequencies small
distances between driver centres are to be prefered.
So a separated line of tweeters will work better than a vertical
line of coaxial drivers.
If you prefer fullrange drivers, they should not exceed a certain
size. In my own design i use a combination of electrical power
tapering and power tapering by placement of drivers.
I was beaten in a german forum, because some guys said
"this is not a line array". I don't care anymore.
In fact the construction does not work like a line source
over the whole frequency range. The transition to the far
field is at close listening distances, because only the
upper 3 drivers produce the highs. So this is a line array
allowing listening in the far field, even in a living room.
It is not a near field line array.
Subjectively the sound source is located at the 2. driver from
above.
If you move your ears vertically, the virtual sound
sources do not move like this is the case with traditional near
field line arrays or true line sources like apogee, magnepan etc.
The design works very well. If you don't like dipoles a version
in a closed box would be possible. But the placement of the
drivers is able to compensate baffle step and baffle rolloff as
well to a certain point.
A subwoofer is needed. I use a dipole sub ...
dipole line array
Cheers ... Oliver
LineArray
"I was beaten in a german forum, because some guys said
"this is not a line array". I don't care anymore."
I love it !!!!!!!!!!!!
your ears, your room, your opinion.
glad you are happy with it.
open baffle is always a plus for clarity in my mind....
and the drivers lower probably add some bass, their directional highs shouldn't interfere with the upper ones.
oh, i see a tweeter !!!!!!!!!
missed that last time..............
where you crossing at ?
how steep ?
I think a seperate tweeter would be a help compared to line of full rnage drivers...................
actually the more I look at your array the more I like it (except cost of the fsb125s)........pretty, and spouse friendly
norman
"I was beaten in a german forum, because some guys said
"this is not a line array". I don't care anymore."
I love it !!!!!!!!!!!!
your ears, your room, your opinion.
glad you are happy with it.
open baffle is always a plus for clarity in my mind....
and the drivers lower probably add some bass, their directional highs shouldn't interfere with the upper ones.
oh, i see a tweeter !!!!!!!!!
missed that last time..............
where you crossing at ?
how steep ?
I think a seperate tweeter would be a help compared to line of full rnage drivers...................
actually the more I look at your array the more I like it (except cost of the fsb125s)........pretty, and spouse friendly
norman
Hi Norman,
thank You for Your encouragement !
I will try to add some specifications soon, the whole thing
is still under development.
The backward tweeter panel comprises 2 dome tweeters.
The tweeter panel is to fill up the highs misssing in the
backward radiation of the fullrange drivers.
The backward felt housing of the fullrangers is to smooth the
natural rolloff.
The two tweeters are connected in series.
To higher frequencies, one of the tweeters is bridged by a
capacitor. The tweeter panel as a whole has NO CROSSOVER
at all. The natural rolloff of the tweeters is used.
(12dB/Octave at 1,5 Khz)
There is a voltage divider making this possible. Distortion,
overpowering or excursion is not a problem for the tweeters.
The crossover frequency between the backward
radiating fullrangers and the tweeters is about 1,5 Khz.
It was the aim of the construction, to get along without
a front firing tweeter. Even a very good tweeter would
spoil the cohesive impression simply by being there,
needing a crossover and changing dispersion at
XO frequency.
There is no lack of brilliance, you feel with some fullrangers.
This is because the upper 3 fullrangers and the lower 3
are each wired in parallel. Both groups are in series at lf .
The lower group is bridged by a RC network, so impedance
lowers to high frequencies. You can adjust the upper 3
group from sounding "covered" to "nasty" as you like.
Brilliance is not a problem. The theoretical better traits of
a specialized tweeter do not compensate the loss of
coherence to my ears.
Concerning the fr125s: It is a cheap driver, when considering
its traits. Motor and amount of linear excursion make it very
suitable for open baffle application.
Attached pic shows the backward tweeter baffle.
Cheers Oliver
thank You for Your encouragement !
I will try to add some specifications soon, the whole thing
is still under development.
The backward tweeter panel comprises 2 dome tweeters.
The tweeter panel is to fill up the highs misssing in the
backward radiation of the fullrange drivers.
The backward felt housing of the fullrangers is to smooth the
natural rolloff.
The two tweeters are connected in series.
To higher frequencies, one of the tweeters is bridged by a
capacitor. The tweeter panel as a whole has NO CROSSOVER
at all. The natural rolloff of the tweeters is used.
(12dB/Octave at 1,5 Khz)
There is a voltage divider making this possible. Distortion,
overpowering or excursion is not a problem for the tweeters.
The crossover frequency between the backward
radiating fullrangers and the tweeters is about 1,5 Khz.
It was the aim of the construction, to get along without
a front firing tweeter. Even a very good tweeter would
spoil the cohesive impression simply by being there,
needing a crossover and changing dispersion at
XO frequency.
There is no lack of brilliance, you feel with some fullrangers.
This is because the upper 3 fullrangers and the lower 3
are each wired in parallel. Both groups are in series at lf .
The lower group is bridged by a RC network, so impedance
lowers to high frequencies. You can adjust the upper 3
group from sounding "covered" to "nasty" as you like.
Brilliance is not a problem. The theoretical better traits of
a specialized tweeter do not compensate the loss of
coherence to my ears.
Concerning the fr125s: It is a cheap driver, when considering
its traits. Motor and amount of linear excursion make it very
suitable for open baffle application.
Attached pic shows the backward tweeter baffle.
Cheers Oliver
Attachments
- Status
- Not open for further replies.