Patrick
Your point is so correct. While I put measurements first, I do confirm everything with listening, but never, never never and NEVER, upon first listening. This is almost always wrong. I will listen for days, at least four hours total in front of the loudspeakers. Then, I might go back to the "before" if there was a change and listen to that for several days. Then when the measurements and all this listening agree, I will make the change permanent. If they don't agree, then no change is made, but I have something new to work out.
Your point is so correct. While I put measurements first, I do confirm everything with listening, but never, never never and NEVER, upon first listening. This is almost always wrong. I will listen for days, at least four hours total in front of the loudspeakers. Then, I might go back to the "before" if there was a change and listen to that for several days. Then when the measurements and all this listening agree, I will make the change permanent. If they don't agree, then no change is made, but I have something new to work out.
gedlee said:
I am in software (my bio on here is a goof).
I could literally write a script to describe how people react to a new stereo.
class Audiophiles-are-predictable
public static void main (String args[]) {
int days2live = 29200;
int N=180;
while (days2live > 0)
System.out.print("
System.out.print("Day 1: Joe Blow embarks upon new speaker project")
System.out.print("Day 2: Joe Blow invests hard work on new speaker")
System.out.print("Day 3 - N: More work, more sweat, more money spent on project")
System.out.print("Day N+1: Joe Blow finishes speaker. Declares that new speaker is a "revelation." Joe Blow declares that he can't believe how he ever lived with the steaming pile of sh1t he used to listen to.")
System.out.print("Day N+2: Joe Blow notices some small idiosyncracy in new speaker")
System.out.print("Day N+30: Joe Blow declares that new speaker is good, but he can do better.")
days2live=days2live-35
days2live=days2live-N
}
The function above is a loop. AN ENDLESS LOOP.
The problem with Hi Fidelity is when people react the same way as being criticized for the dress that is worn.😀
Good one Patrick!
I used to build speakers and think they sounded Grrreat!
But now more often it's "oh, that didn't turn out as I'd hoped =(". That can be an endless loop in itself.
I used to build speakers and think they sounded Grrreat!
But now more often it's "oh, that didn't turn out as I'd hoped =(". That can be an endless loop in itself.
Loops are engineering, but if the loop is not converging on an answer then something is wrong. Stepping out the subjective loop and taking GOOD measurements is the key to this convergence. Grounding the loop to something that is not subjective is crucial.
Mine was the open baffle. It's so amazing how much time was spent on amps, tweak this component, that component etc. where the path of enlightment was actually a simple plank wood 😀
Hi Gainphile
Same here, once I tried open baffle I just found everything else sounded fake.
it is interesting to note that at the time my son a typical 19yr old at the time, who had heard all the other stuff I had built but had no great insight into audio other than a decent pair of younger ears said straight away that the open baffle was the best thing he had ever heard and I had pretty much similar comments from everyone else who heard them.
I should note however that my concept of OBs does not involve using the typical big drivers (ie 8 inch and above ) for the crucial mid range but rather efficient widerange 4 inch drivers. They simply stick to a waveform like chewing gum to a new shoe.
I have found it interesting that many times on many forums I have come across posts by people who have stumbled across the concept of small drivers on OBs and been blown away by the musical presentation, quite happily accepting the poor bass output of such set-ups.
In the months following my OB baptism I would often walk into hi-fi shops to listen to what was on offer but in all cases the sound was bland and just not lifelike regardless of how pricey the set-up.
My son made an interesting comment after listening to a very pricey pair of B and Ws that he felt they just lacked life in comparison and represented poor value, fortunately the salesman was out of earshot.
I think that the core problem for a lot of guys is that the speakers they are using are lacking in the ability to truly reveal the musical content and they are having to spend masses of cash to try and compensate, but of course the speaker always remains the weak and defining link in the system. In many cases they compensate by trying to go really loud, but that just hurts the ears and really doesn't sound better. Somehow I think a good set-up should sound great at lowish volume levels, but maybe I m just getting to long in the tooth.
To my ears lots of supposedly great speakers sound bass heavy and top end tinkly and way too smooth, but I imagine to the uninitiated in a hifi shop audition they grab quite a bit of attention.
Of course OBs have their limitations but despite what the maths and theory tells us those limitations just don't seem to be such a big issue in real world listening.
I suppose from the hi fi makers standpoint OBs are really a dirty little secret they would rather keep a lid on, it would be pretty hard to justify big money for them considering the simplicity unless of course you go down the real hi-tech tri-amped etc route such as a couple of makers have done.
I would go so far as to say however that I think the OB is about to go through a real renaissance and may just yet prove to be the next big thing in audio.
Once I then committed to efficient OBs I could then build a system that worked in with that, for example I no longer needed lots of power so 6 watts of clean SLA powered gainclone made for a sound sweeter than anything else I had tried. And of course other bits like cables, pre-amps etc were able to be made to suit the gainclones characteristics. Finally with OBs little changes to cartridge tracking weight, cart loading, op amp changing, cable replacements all made obvious differences that pretty much anyone could hear, with regular speakers the changes had to be massive before anything was obvious at the listening end of things so it would have been easy to assume I simply hadn't spent enough money to get the result I was after.
Same here, once I tried open baffle I just found everything else sounded fake.
it is interesting to note that at the time my son a typical 19yr old at the time, who had heard all the other stuff I had built but had no great insight into audio other than a decent pair of younger ears said straight away that the open baffle was the best thing he had ever heard and I had pretty much similar comments from everyone else who heard them.
I should note however that my concept of OBs does not involve using the typical big drivers (ie 8 inch and above ) for the crucial mid range but rather efficient widerange 4 inch drivers. They simply stick to a waveform like chewing gum to a new shoe.
I have found it interesting that many times on many forums I have come across posts by people who have stumbled across the concept of small drivers on OBs and been blown away by the musical presentation, quite happily accepting the poor bass output of such set-ups.
In the months following my OB baptism I would often walk into hi-fi shops to listen to what was on offer but in all cases the sound was bland and just not lifelike regardless of how pricey the set-up.
My son made an interesting comment after listening to a very pricey pair of B and Ws that he felt they just lacked life in comparison and represented poor value, fortunately the salesman was out of earshot.
I think that the core problem for a lot of guys is that the speakers they are using are lacking in the ability to truly reveal the musical content and they are having to spend masses of cash to try and compensate, but of course the speaker always remains the weak and defining link in the system. In many cases they compensate by trying to go really loud, but that just hurts the ears and really doesn't sound better. Somehow I think a good set-up should sound great at lowish volume levels, but maybe I m just getting to long in the tooth.
To my ears lots of supposedly great speakers sound bass heavy and top end tinkly and way too smooth, but I imagine to the uninitiated in a hifi shop audition they grab quite a bit of attention.
Of course OBs have their limitations but despite what the maths and theory tells us those limitations just don't seem to be such a big issue in real world listening.
I suppose from the hi fi makers standpoint OBs are really a dirty little secret they would rather keep a lid on, it would be pretty hard to justify big money for them considering the simplicity unless of course you go down the real hi-tech tri-amped etc route such as a couple of makers have done.
I would go so far as to say however that I think the OB is about to go through a real renaissance and may just yet prove to be the next big thing in audio.
Once I then committed to efficient OBs I could then build a system that worked in with that, for example I no longer needed lots of power so 6 watts of clean SLA powered gainclone made for a sound sweeter than anything else I had tried. And of course other bits like cables, pre-amps etc were able to be made to suit the gainclones characteristics. Finally with OBs little changes to cartridge tracking weight, cart loading, op amp changing, cable replacements all made obvious differences that pretty much anyone could hear, with regular speakers the changes had to be massive before anything was obvious at the listening end of things so it would have been easy to assume I simply hadn't spent enough money to get the result I was after.
Open baffl-ing
What stands out with my dipoles is the utter lifelike imaging throughout our house these speakers present. Depending on how well the source material is recorded, there is almost a spooky presence in the room (I refer to it as jump factor) wherein voices (especially female vocalists, piano solos, and acoustic guitar) float in space at seemingly predetermined, stable, and accurate locations in the room, no matter where you sit. This image remains stable, in fact, when walking from my usual listening position towards the front door, you feel as if you're walking through a holographic projection of the musicians. And, being quasi linesource, they play undistortedly LOUD throughout the house, ear splitting levels if desired (I rarely listen over 105 dB @ 15 feet though, even on movie soundtracks).
really uncanny... never gotten this perception from box speakers.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=95603
John L.
What stands out with my dipoles is the utter lifelike imaging throughout our house these speakers present. Depending on how well the source material is recorded, there is almost a spooky presence in the room (I refer to it as jump factor) wherein voices (especially female vocalists, piano solos, and acoustic guitar) float in space at seemingly predetermined, stable, and accurate locations in the room, no matter where you sit. This image remains stable, in fact, when walking from my usual listening position towards the front door, you feel as if you're walking through a holographic projection of the musicians. And, being quasi linesource, they play undistortedly LOUD throughout the house, ear splitting levels if desired (I rarely listen over 105 dB @ 15 feet though, even on movie soundtracks).
really uncanny... never gotten this perception from box speakers.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=95603
John L.
Zero One said:
zero one and auplater,
i fully agree with your perception.
In my point of view, the difference in the performance of
OB and boxed speakers is mainly caused in the bass to midrange.
The difference to me is not just what i hear, its also a difference in
the bodily feeling while listening. The absence of cavity or
length resonances present in almost every boxed speaker is
one thing.
Another thing is that room modes are excited to a lower extent
due to the high directivity of an OB at low to mid frequencies.
If using dipole subwoofers, there is the lack of
room pressurization. By the way everyone who uses a
full dipole system tells me that neighbour rooms are less
disturbed, especially in the bass range.
These attributes sum up to a performance which f e e l s
very much more like the setting in a concert hall.
Because of the smaller size, a living room has a much smaller
mode density compared to concert hall. Single resonances are
audible and you can feel them in with your body. The low density
of modes of the listening room degrades performance.
The music is locked up in two nested box sections one of
them is the speaker box and the other one is the living
room box.
Both of them are disproportionately smaller than a concert
hall and overlay their low density mode patterns on the
reproduction. It is obvoius that it can't work.
When playing organ music e.g. i do not like it, when there
are certain fundamentals overblown by modes of the
listening room. It does not just feel bad, it
spoils the illusion of beeing present a church or hall.
An open baffle adresses all of these problems at once.
No cavity or length (organ pipe like) resonances from the
speaker, less excitation of listening room modes. Less
reverberation from the listening room at all.
I fully agree that this technology will see a renaissance in
high quality systems. There are many possibilities to overcome
practical contraints in low bass reproduction.
And where else do we see problems than in bass reproduction
at higher levels ?
At very low frequencies in my opinion it is unnecessary to
use inefficient open baffles (as a subwoofer), even when
dipole or kardioid radiation is desired. If a speaker enclosure
is very small compared to wavelength and built stiff enough
to be non resonant at low frequencies, where is the problem?
But this is not the question.
The open baffle principle has exceptional advantages. Practical
constraints are there to be overcome, they do not devaluate the
principle. With todays technology these problems are relatively
easy to solve. There were good OB Systems 50 years ago which
worked well, there is no reason for lamenting on practical
problems in my view.
Lynn Olson said:
I think video is far more evolved than audio. There's standards in place, every parameter is quantified, bagged, tagged and thus repeatable in the home environment ie. After an ISF calibration on my display device, I know I'm seeing exactly what the director intended. The same is impossible to achieve with audio.
I use an ISF'd 1080p JVC HD1 projector with a 102" screen. Not reality but it scoops you up in thoroughly enjoyable and entertaining fashion.
A few observations --
1) I agree with the opinion voiced above that we would be better off if we listened to many more live performances of unamplified (acoustic) music. (Living in a city like Tokyo gives me plenty of such opportunities. Having kids who are classical musicians gives me an added impetus.)
2) I suspect that a lot of the "problem" is in the recording. (At least, the recording is a problem if the aim is to "re-create" the live performance.)
3) I suspect that even if there were not problems in the recording, there are problems in the architecture of our listening rooms. (At least, the architecture of our listening room is a problem if the aim is to "re-create" the live performance.)
4) We have grown so accustomed to hearing music as it sounds coming through a pair of speakers that many people would likely reject as less than ideal the faithful re-creation of a live performance if such a thing actually occurred in their listening room. It is not the sort of sound that we have been conditioned to accept as "hi-fi."
5) I don't think 4) above is necessarily a bad thing at all. As soon as we accept that the aim of the home listening experience is not necessarily to re-create the experience of the live performance, we can be much more satisfied with what we've got. We can also establish goals that are actually attainable. We can (potentially, at least) be *totally* content with what we have right now. In a certain sense, we can even have a "better-than-live" listening experience in our listening rooms. ("Better" but also different.) I don't think it is possible or even necessarily desirable to re-create the live listening experience -- at least not with performances of unamplified acoustic instruments and voices. (If the performance was originally coming through a PA system, the nature of the experience is much different and it is probably much more similar to what we are doing in our listening rooms.)
6) As far as contentment in audio goes, we can probably learn a thing or two from the non-audiophile music lovers in our lives. When a loved one sends me a letter conveying a heart-warming message of love, there is something wrong with me if I am *more* concerned with the paper, ink, and calligraphic writing than I am with the content of the words on the page. And it would also be sad if I could not even read the words on the page, or if my vocabulary was so limited that I could not comprehend what was being said when someone read the letter to me. "What does 'etermal' mean? And can you explain to me 'passion'?" Unfortunately, a LOT in classical music and even in jazz goes over my head, because of my musical illiteracy. Music can be appreciated in many ways and at many levels, and the typical audiophile's focus is on just part of the "big picture." As my kids have classical musical training that I completely lack, I can see a vast difference between their listening and mine. They are paying so much attention to the musical message that they can be quite happy listening to a cruddy sound system that would drive me nuts. They recognize the superiority and the desirability of the better sounding system -- at least, desirable if it doesn't bankrupt you in the process of obtaining it, and doesn't require you to re-arrange your entire life around your sound system -- but their listening is a constant reminder to me of the fact that my musical illiteracy limits my ability to appreciate music and largely determines my approach to audio.
-- Chris
1) I agree with the opinion voiced above that we would be better off if we listened to many more live performances of unamplified (acoustic) music. (Living in a city like Tokyo gives me plenty of such opportunities. Having kids who are classical musicians gives me an added impetus.)
2) I suspect that a lot of the "problem" is in the recording. (At least, the recording is a problem if the aim is to "re-create" the live performance.)
3) I suspect that even if there were not problems in the recording, there are problems in the architecture of our listening rooms. (At least, the architecture of our listening room is a problem if the aim is to "re-create" the live performance.)
4) We have grown so accustomed to hearing music as it sounds coming through a pair of speakers that many people would likely reject as less than ideal the faithful re-creation of a live performance if such a thing actually occurred in their listening room. It is not the sort of sound that we have been conditioned to accept as "hi-fi."
5) I don't think 4) above is necessarily a bad thing at all. As soon as we accept that the aim of the home listening experience is not necessarily to re-create the experience of the live performance, we can be much more satisfied with what we've got. We can also establish goals that are actually attainable. We can (potentially, at least) be *totally* content with what we have right now. In a certain sense, we can even have a "better-than-live" listening experience in our listening rooms. ("Better" but also different.) I don't think it is possible or even necessarily desirable to re-create the live listening experience -- at least not with performances of unamplified acoustic instruments and voices. (If the performance was originally coming through a PA system, the nature of the experience is much different and it is probably much more similar to what we are doing in our listening rooms.)
6) As far as contentment in audio goes, we can probably learn a thing or two from the non-audiophile music lovers in our lives. When a loved one sends me a letter conveying a heart-warming message of love, there is something wrong with me if I am *more* concerned with the paper, ink, and calligraphic writing than I am with the content of the words on the page. And it would also be sad if I could not even read the words on the page, or if my vocabulary was so limited that I could not comprehend what was being said when someone read the letter to me. "What does 'etermal' mean? And can you explain to me 'passion'?" Unfortunately, a LOT in classical music and even in jazz goes over my head, because of my musical illiteracy. Music can be appreciated in many ways and at many levels, and the typical audiophile's focus is on just part of the "big picture." As my kids have classical musical training that I completely lack, I can see a vast difference between their listening and mine. They are paying so much attention to the musical message that they can be quite happy listening to a cruddy sound system that would drive me nuts. They recognize the superiority and the desirability of the better sounding system -- at least, desirable if it doesn't bankrupt you in the process of obtaining it, and doesn't require you to re-arrange your entire life around your sound system -- but their listening is a constant reminder to me of the fact that my musical illiteracy limits my ability to appreciate music and largely determines my approach to audio.
-- Chris
LineArray,
while agree with much of what you say there are some things that could be discussed.
I should add that I'm mostly a dipole guy as well since a number of years back however boxed speaker can perform extremly good if they are well designed and (most important) the room is taken care of. Now that's the problem I'd say.. most people don't have a dedicated room and therefore there is only so much that can be done to the room. Dipoles normally perform good with much less effort put into the room acoustics.
In a well designed box speaker there are no disturbing cavity resonances or pipe resonances. The owerblown bass is due to poor match between speaker and room. Take a bassreflex speaker outside and suddenly what was boomy in the livingroom is hard hitting high quality bass.
/Peter
while agree with much of what you say there are some things that could be discussed.
I should add that I'm mostly a dipole guy as well since a number of years back however boxed speaker can perform extremly good if they are well designed and (most important) the room is taken care of. Now that's the problem I'd say.. most people don't have a dedicated room and therefore there is only so much that can be done to the room. Dipoles normally perform good with much less effort put into the room acoustics.
In a well designed box speaker there are no disturbing cavity resonances or pipe resonances. The owerblown bass is due to poor match between speaker and room. Take a bassreflex speaker outside and suddenly what was boomy in the livingroom is hard hitting high quality bass.
/Peter
Chris! Stop making sense! 😉
I have a few issues with point #6 - but #4 is right on.
ShinOBIWAN. They're doing ISF calibrations in the UK now? Who knew?
I have a few issues with point #6 - but #4 is right on.
ShinOBIWAN. They're doing ISF calibrations in the UK now? Who knew?
panomaniac said:
Surely you jest?
Most installers have been offering the ISF calibration services for at least 7 years that I know of, maybe longer. It used to be expensive, that I do know, but recently its become more affordable for the domestic user at around £200-250 per device. Well worth it if your spending £3k+ on a large screen display.
Vision gives much less space for interpretation than hearing, by nature.
Vision is much more factual, when hearing is much more of an experience beyond its practical function.
Both senses can be tricked by illusions.
All the above followed by a big IMHO.
Vision is much more factual, when hearing is much more of an experience beyond its practical function.
Both senses can be tricked by illusions.
All the above followed by a big IMHO.
ShinOBIWAN said:
Zounds! I'll have to dust off my old ISF diploma. (Triple certified, was I - woopee!)
I used to do a lot of calibrations for broadcast TV and production suites - a few home theaters. But I only charged $100 a screen. 😱
- Status
- Not open for further replies.