I second the proprius cantate domino as a test recording. I didn't know what was possible in aural scene scale until I heard that recording.
Of course, but it's not far off in many objective parameters either. It's not meant to be precise, it's a sense of scale, and in that aspect, accurate.
It's extremely important to include the amount of phase shift if you're going to focus on that. If an amplifier introduces enough phase shift it will become unstable as well. If we're going to start including badly designed amplifiers in this discussion, we will completely miss the point. Good amplifiers, any topology, must not introduce significant phase shift. I've cited one specific example, but it applies to any. No amp will go -180 degrees at 20kHz or it will become a high power oscillator if feedback is involved, and it almost always is to some extent. And...keep this in perspective, 180 degrees at 20kHz is 8mm acoustically.
Pretty much what I said. Point?
I've let others define "soundstage". "Point sources of sound delayed in time" wouldn't be one that I or anyone else has suggested here.
I don't disagree that low frequency content is associated with apparent size, but not width specifically. I have already advocated the use of one or more subwoofers to achieve that. But I can't say that LF content "expands the soundstage", which I believe the common definition includes the width dimension, as well as depth.
It's a moot point, he isn't interested in subs or room treatment, so all he has left is speakers and the ficticous idea that an amp will widen the soundstage.
Audio Physics speakers are thought of as a soundstage champs. Pleasant sound of Picolos and adequate design does not have to indicate that they will image or soundstage like best designs optimized for it and it seems that a sounstaging is a hallmark of high-end and a lot of effort and $$$$ is dedicated to maximize this effect. DIY mentality will not fit here I'm afraid.
Everything is at play in the audio chain and there are no simple answers . I agree that side panels managing the first reflections will help significantly and they can be made aesthetically pleasant. Finally , a lot of classical recordings plainly sucks and majority is not made to impress sounstaging and imaging aficionados. Best imaging speakers I owned were Cabasse Iroise.
Small speakers tend to sound small and there is little one can do about it and there is no problem putting a bigger speakers into small room as long as they are designed for it. Problem is nobody does that .
Everything is at play in the audio chain and there are no simple answers . I agree that side panels managing the first reflections will help significantly and they can be made aesthetically pleasant. Finally , a lot of classical recordings plainly sucks and majority is not made to impress sounstaging and imaging aficionados. Best imaging speakers I owned were Cabasse Iroise.
Small speakers tend to sound small and there is little one can do about it and there is no problem putting a bigger speakers into small room as long as they are designed for it. Problem is nobody does that .
The above presumes that the phase of a harmonic is known. This is not true. Harmonic phase is not fixed, and is a function of the nature of the instument generating the sound. Harmonic phase affects timbre, and will not necessarily maintain a fixed polarity relationship with frequency. Those involved in sound systhesis know about this in detail.
As to the variable control that supposedly controlled the phase of the second harmonic...this is simply not possible. The second harmonic is not fixed in frequency or phase. An all-pass network can change harmonic phase, but has a fixed frequency break point. There simply is no way a simple control can change the phase of only the second harmonic without affecting all other harmonics (with other amounts of phase shift) and affecting the fundamental too as it crosses the all-pas filter break point.
There is either a LOT of missing information here, or it's simply "story".
Edit: To reiterate, there is absolutely no way to know what "positive phase" is in a recording played through a system. There are many opportunities in the entire signal chain for polarity inversion, but also phase change with frequency. Analog tape recorders have phase shift within the audio band! And not a little bit, also affected by bias and EQ settings, quite significantly. It is a major presumption to assume we know what the oritinal polarity, or phase response is/was. And if that's true, than the only means of compesation is to listen to what we think sounds better. That doesn't mean it is "as original", it means we like it better.
About " no patience for subjective wishy washy stuff " I think its all subjective and a reason most here probably have a tragic sounding systems and they are eager to share the disastrous recipes with the world.
IF this were all subjective there could be no forward progress in the technology. Even subjective observations can be objectively analyzed, if enough data is collected. The problem is with a single opinion, which is neither data, nor objective. It can't even be verified.
The final result of a given audio system is always personal and highly subjective. You simply " can't buy love " although you may rationalize about it as nauseum and " follow the science "
I gather OP lives in Chicago area. Its a major city with thriving audio scene. It would take a little effort to source several components to try and figure out the culprit instead there is 100 posts how to beat the worlds best for $100 .
I gather OP lives in Chicago area. Its a major city with thriving audio scene. It would take a little effort to source several components to try and figure out the culprit instead there is 100 posts how to beat the worlds best for $100 .
Not everyone to be sure, but some use science to find out why something is subjectively preferred. If you learn that, you can build on it, improve it, and replicate it. Without finding out the why, you can't get to the how.
Those suggestions, if they were real (and they are not) would be quintessential "subjective" opinions. Finding out the culprit? You've just described a scientific way to finding the "love"!
Yeah. Deliberately adding 2nd...not my thing, not matter what phase they are.
Edit: A while ago I experimented extensively with the delibrate addition of second, and other even-order harmonics. Varying amounts, phases, etc. Comparied to the original it never worked for me in a positive way, and it took an astounding amount of distortion to create an audible change. Its another philosophy, but it doesn't make sense when the goal is to create as nearly as possible an acoustic representation of the original electrical signal.
From the article, the device can also be used to null 2nd harmonic as well, which would make for an interesting A/B comparison on a single-ended circuit. Though as a design element to null the even harmonics of a single-ended circuit, we already have that device; it’s called building a push-pull circuit.
Forum member Wavebourn has some interesting posts about adding decoupling capacitors to fix asymmetrical intermodulated phase distortion (he was using a distortion analyzer). It’s relevant to the conversation because his impression was that there was an improvement in the sense of depth in the music. I’ll try to link the posts rather than attempt to summarize them.
Last edited:
"More complicated than I want to deal with." That is a small room. The best improvements I have heard in my small room was room treatment. Nothing expensive, but it will take time, for a diy solution. The ceiling treatment really brought lots of sound stage improvements.
How the sound waves bounce around in a small room, has more effect than equipment imho. Buy new speakers, buy another amp you will still have the same room. Same reverb, same cancelation, same echo, same mess. Maybe not the answer you want to read.
Attachments
No, I got your point and fully disagree with it. Your quote doesn't support anything either other than a subjective opinion.
The "conclusion" contains this: "In fact, apart from assuming the preference for low amounts of simple forms of distortion, we haven't discussed the listener at all. Nevertheless, I am trying to make a point that relates strongly to the apparent disconnect between subjective experience and simple measurements of distortion.
<snip>
The resulting complexity creates distortion which is unlike the simple harmonics associated with musical instruments, and we see that these complex waves can gather to create the occasional tsunami of distortion, peaking at values far above those imagined by the distortion specifications.
And finally, this:
If you want the peak distortion of the circuit of figure 13 to remain below .1% with a complex signal, then you need to reduce it by a factor of about 3000. 70 dB of feedback would do it, but that does seems like a lot. By contrast, it appears that if you can make a single stage operate at .01% 2nd harmonic with a single tone without feedback, you could also achieve the .1% peak in the complex IM test.
And at last:
I like to think the latter would sound better.
No testing, no evidence, none at all. Nelson knows better!
Here's the really silly bit: any speaker...ANY speaker...introduces far, far more distortion of all kinds. Complex music tends to mask distortion to the point of inaudibility, particularly even order.
From "High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a Double-Blind Comparator" by David L. Clark, JAES, May 1982.
"To find out what amount of distortion was audible, a distortion generator was developed (Fig. 8). Nicknamed the "Grunge box," it generates even-order harmonic components that are independent of level. The rms out- put also remains nearly constant as percent total har- monic distortion is varied. Distortion can be heard on high- or low-level music passages, and there are no level-set problems. No two real-world nonlinearities are the same, and the "Grunge box" is yet another one, but its sound is somehow typical and useful. The best done so far is 3%, but with carefully selected material (such as a flute solo) 2% or 1% might be possible. 1% is easy with sine waves. "
What he means by the "best done" is the minimum audible level of even order distortion that was reliably audible.
So...Nelson wants it reduced by a factor of 3000 below .1%. OK. How is that audible in a controlled test? Sorry, no data, but indications from Clark are that it wasn't audible at .1%.
The room has very thick carpet and a very thick pad underneath that. The carpet is about as thick as you can get. Your foot sinks way down into the carpet when you walk on it. If you clap your hands anywhere in the room there is virtually no echo whatsoever.
I'm not convinced that room treatments will make enough of a difference, if any at all, to be worth the effort, expense, and aesthetic issues.
Nor am I convinced that I have an acoustic "mess" right now as you claim I have. Au contraire, I think the room is much less of a factor in what I hear than the speakers themselves.