The problem is that this procedure has not been proven out. It may work, but then it may not for any number of reasons. Hearing test equipment has to be calibrated and tested to a national standard, but this is only done to 8 kHz. That frequency alone should tell you something - the experts don't see any need to go above 8 kHz.
If you knew - and this would be very difficult - that you had a pair of headphones that are flat to 20 kHz, then that would be your best bet. Over loudspeakers there are far too many problems. But 20 kHz in a headphone is going to be tough.
At any rate, I don't think that the argument that So and So can hear 16 kHz or 20 kHz has any meaning at all. To me the point is that this stuff makes virtually no difference in the overall sound quality as perceived in a listening space for normal music, wether you can hear up there or not. There is very little content, your hearing is far from accute and most speakers do a very poor job.
This discussion all started with a post claiming that compression drivers were no good because they couldn't get to 20 kHz. This is nonsense, because where they do work they do a far better job than a direct radiator and where they don't work as well it is unimportant. Again, classic audiophile retoric where one small irrelavent limitation is raised to the omnipotent.
45, that's not true. There are papers on that subject. If you were here to learn something new then I woud be willing to post some links so you could educate yourself. But your behavior in various threads has been just full of ignorance. You probably have never seen something like this:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Why would a loudspeaker manufacturer post this when there's no correlation between (off-axis) frequency response and perception?
Best, Markus
P.S. Just in case you might want to broaden your horizon: http://harman.com/EN-US/OurCompany/Technologyleadership/Documents/Scientific Publications/13686.pdf
Last edited:
If someone does the RIGHT measurements then they can be pretty accurate in determining the performance of the speaker.
a simplistic FR plot is far from the RIGHT measurements 😉
musical performance is purely an audiophile subjective buzz word and has no relevance in terms of actually defining sound quality.
Doug
This is quite correct and I completely agree that the typical axial FR is virtually useless at telling what a speaker will sound like. Markus shows what's required and as he says, you virtually never see that.
I have lots of musician friends and they use terms like "Musical" and "musicality" all the time, but when they do you find that its the performance that they are talking about. It takes some time to explain to them how the performance and the playback quality are two unrelated things and judging one tells you nothing about the other. Most musicians "get it" after awhile, but it is usually very difficult for them in the begining. They tend to see them both as one thing not two.
Marcus
Shouldn't you have linked to: http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/Philosophy.pdf:eek:
From what I can tell, the advantages of various driver types are as follows:
Home:
Pros:
-Usually optimized for lower energy storage and THD at low power output
-Usually quite small, with relatively large excursions
-Generally usable over a very wide range of frequencies
-Often less expensive than pro drivers.
-Often much smaller than pro drivers reproducing the same frequencies.
Cons:
-THD+N and energy storage go to hell in a handbasket at high power output
-Dynamic compression can be audible at high levels of power output
-Not capable of the same levels of output as similar pro drivers
-Inefficient
-Not as durable as pro drivers.
Professional:
Pros:
-Usually VERY efficient
-Capable of enormous output
-Very durable
-Almost no power compression
Cons:
-THD+N and energy storage often inferior to comparable home drivers (though under high output, this difference may be reversed)
-Relatively small usable bandwidth in many drivers
-Woofers often trade excursion for efficiency
-Very very big.
Home:
Pros:
-Usually optimized for lower energy storage and THD at low power output
-Usually quite small, with relatively large excursions
-Generally usable over a very wide range of frequencies
-Often less expensive than pro drivers.
-Often much smaller than pro drivers reproducing the same frequencies.
Cons:
-THD+N and energy storage go to hell in a handbasket at high power output
-Dynamic compression can be audible at high levels of power output
-Not capable of the same levels of output as similar pro drivers
-Inefficient
-Not as durable as pro drivers.
Professional:
Pros:
-Usually VERY efficient
-Capable of enormous output
-Very durable
-Almost no power compression
Cons:
-THD+N and energy storage often inferior to comparable home drivers (though under high output, this difference may be reversed)
-Relatively small usable bandwidth in many drivers
-Woofers often trade excursion for efficiency
-Very very big.
I would still love to see data for that opinion. I have asked already but no one has posted any data.
I know that relatively small usable bandwidth might be more of a subjective thing and I think 60Hz to 1200Hz for a 15" driver is an incredible range spanning many octaves. Compression drivers can run from 1000Hz to 15KHz without issue too.
I just do not see where someone can conclude pro designs have small usable bandwidths.
Good points and all are the biggest reasons why pro designs are technically superior considering content (Movies and some music) have over +20dB peaks. No way a simple hifi design will work in any custom HT room.
Last edited:
So sound quality has nothing to with music! Where are these RIGHT measurements? I want to see precise things and precise explanations not meaningless subjective beliefs like yours!
So you are on a DIY forum that should be all about design, etc and you do not believe in measurements?? 😱
There are 100s of forums for people like yourself where subjective "I only believe what Hear" mantra is accepted and spit polished over and over.
I would think and hope Science and Measurements are the foundation of this forum (It used to be).
Sound Quality has nothing to do with what you think sounds good and everything do to with measured performance. You are incorrectly using the term SQ. All you are really doing is posting and telling everyone what your "Sound Preference" is and in the world of audio science isnt needed.
There is a big difference but don't let those little facts get in away of your audiophile belief system. I do not have "beliefs" and Im definitely not subjective because audio is not a faith based hobby for me.
Its pretty simple especially on a DIY forum. If some one can not back up opinion with supported data then their opinion is meaningless.
You do realize that when you post "Precise", you are asking for measurements 😉 because there is nothing precise about posting "Musical Performance" , its 100% subjective!
Last edited:
I would urge you to pick up the book written by Floyd Toole before you go thinking there is no correlation between measurements and sound quality. There is plenty of documentation from some of the best sources in the world. Spend some time reading up on the actual science behind claims made by guys such as Toole and Geddes and you will see that it is based in realism.
No one here is going to hand feed you all the information. If you go get it yourself you are much more apt to believe it.
What exactly is old and why? What is "it"? Why does "it" not work?
Ever heard of Alan Blumlein? Stereo?
Why "the brain"? Why not start with sound perception? Ever heard of Psychoacoustics? Jens Blauert's book "Spatial Hearing"?
Replacing arguments with insults? That's pretty immature.
So what you're saying is that all those scientists that contributed psychoacoustic studies over the last decades don't know what they're talking about? Do you really think that anybody can take you seriously?
Best, Markus
Bingo! Just disagree on that 90%....
It's a start and not an exhaustive explanation because it's acoustics = physics = not music.
Just like the importance of THD in our tube amps.....
The fact is that I don't need to read this book because I already know these things.
For example, the absorbers I use have precise shape, volume and weight according to the job they have to do. But I have not seen anyone of these guys who read books and articles explaining how it works and what it does!
I do not pretend to know what it does on the listener it would sufficient to know what it does on the physical sound field of the room. There is no need of simulations knowing acoustics.
Last night I also accepted to be told I was giving second hand information, I was unsure etc... but that's not true. I simply didn't deliver exact technical aspects because there are copyrights (but that could not be necessarily a problem in principle) and above all because I am well aware there are always guys like Makus76 and Theo404 who know everything but do say nothing except putting links, passing judgments and offending.
Cheers,
45
It is the next logical step after reading Toole's "Sound Reproduction", although Blauert's text is based on older studies.
Best, Markus
Why do we need to explain how your little felt monster* works? You want us to believe that it is the best thing since sliced bread.
Do you know what it does and how it works? Then please explain ("It controls the back wave" is not enough). Would love to learn something new. But be prepared that you talk to people that have some knowledge about diffraction and absorption.
*)
I would tend to agree nearly 100%, BUT. I think that a lot of Pros are realizing that Energy storage and THD aren't really all that important in the big picture, certainly not as important as the other things like thermal compression and directivity.
Floyd would say, and I would tend to agree, that distortion does not belong in that list. It has never been correlated with subjective impression. Excess phase may be another one, unless you mean extreme excess phase such as in group delay.
As Markus says its a good backup to Floyds book, but it is hard to apply to the audio situation.
45 - 90% of the way there is far better than what most designs achieve, and this can be done with measurements and proper interpretation. Another 5% requires some different measurements and some listening test correlation on a few obscure issues. The last 5% nobody is doing yet and still needs to be quantified.
And yes, sound quality has nothing to do with music. Sound quality would exist even if music didn't and all we listened to were the sounds of nature, or - God forbide - city life. Music likewise would exist, and has, completely independent of sound reproduction. The two things can be entirely unrelated, albeit they are partners in our particular passion. Partners, but still independent objects. Until this becomes clear to you, you will have trouble understanding our points of view.
If someone cannot explain how something works in quantitative terms then they don;t know how it works and they are only guessing. Not that guessing is all bad, I've done some of that myself, but I'm never satisfied that I have found something of value until I can explain it quantitatively. I'm still wrestling with "foam". It was a guess, a chance encounter, a lucky error, if you will, but I crecognized it had something with value. So I pursued it to gain a better understanding and through that a better application and end result.
Looking at the photo, I can see what might be desirable about that. But I can also see a myriad of other ways to do the same thing that would be far more practical (and well maybe attractive).
I think the question is not whether or not distortion is important, but what metric is used to quantify it.
And yes, group delay (and diffraction) are certainly part of excess phase and (IMO) important.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.