Yep, that's the easiest way. 
I have speakers in my living room that are not fatiguing at all. It's a pair of old Fisher console speakers that contain three 8" Jensen drivers each. No crossover, just wired up together in a big empty box with an open back. They sit under the TV and serve for TV sound and music from Pandora. They are rather dull sounding - and I helped that with tone controls - but absolutely no fatigue. The built in TV speakers add just a little center and some midrange. Alone the TV speakers will wear you out in a hurry - yuck.
The big mellow sound ain't Hi-Fi, but it's pleasant to listen to all day long.
I have speakers in my living room that are not fatiguing at all. It's a pair of old Fisher console speakers that contain three 8" Jensen drivers each. No crossover, just wired up together in a big empty box with an open back. They sit under the TV and serve for TV sound and music from Pandora. They are rather dull sounding - and I helped that with tone controls - but absolutely no fatigue. The built in TV speakers add just a little center and some midrange. Alone the TV speakers will wear you out in a hurry - yuck.
The big mellow sound ain't Hi-Fi, but it's pleasant to listen to all day long.
So......it may be speaker Dave responsible for my 4333s ? Hmmmmmmmmmmm. Wow what a great forum. JBL designers have my full attention! In my estimation damn near everything that made any significant aural difference at all was done by JBL and a few others decades ago. Steps since then? Sideways or backwards. Respect.
What's interesting about these big dumb speakers from the Fifties (which were kind of bottom-of-the-barrel at the time) is they have some rather subtle attributes that are missing in modern drivers: Alnico magnets, rather small gaps that are close to, or at, saturation, and paper cones chosen for subjectively pleasing qualities (at a time when "pop music" with smooth, smooth vocals and harmonies were the dominant musical form).
The goal of "hifi", or a simple table radio, was to make Frank Sinatra or Perry Como sound good, since that's what most people listened to. Rock music was actually pretty rare in the Fifties, jazz was a niche listened to by academics, and classical was for the "hifi nuts" who liked to listen to it at shows and demo it for their friends (some things don't change). Exotic hifi systems concentrated on extreme dynamics, while retaining the tonality of the day (midrange-focussed by modern standards).
The result were speakers that weren't high fidelity in the modern sense, but were listenable in a way that modern boom boxes and radios are not. This isn't nostalgia; listen to any restored radio from the Fifties or earlier and you'll hear it for yourself.
As a historical note, the "accuracy" mania didn't appear until the Absolute Sound and Stereophile reviewers tightened their grip on the high-end audio industry during the early Eighties. This happened at the same time that CD's replaced LP's, so the whole tonal character of hifi changed ... much more emphasis on detail and sharpness, with tonality falling by the wayside.
Not surprisingly, complaints about listening fatigue became much more common, since many hifi systems were starting to sound grossly unnatural, with tipped-up treble and dull, soggy bass. Post-millenium systems are better balanced (and certainly measure better), but only occasionally have the sweet tonality of Fifties systems. Hint: if vocals don't sound right, the system isn't right.
Last edited:
That was an interesting historical sweep, so to speak. Sinatra and Como,...the overview seems sensible in practical (market driven) terms. I've heard more than a couple of 50's era speakers that produced zero listener fatigue. They were all kind of balanced (weak at both extremes, that is). Also, those speakers all had Very light weight paper cones, so I wonder to what extent their transient response capabilities might have been part of their unlikely pleasantness.
such an open-ended question, "What causes listener fatigue". Really it depends on so very many things that, I believe a person who is interested is forced to exercise genius, you know, the ability to simplify the equation, so to say. It does depend, in part, on which ears are listening. Even if ears were goods to be exchanged at will, we would still have brains interpreting what those ears would be hearing, so there is always that too.
I have noted that harmonics and their proportions can cause fatigue (Just listen to some first or second generation transistor amps through any speaker you like and it is glaringly obvious). Also, "spurious behaviors" (see the aforementioned amps) even when they can't be heard directly, screw things up in a nasty way for my ears. The list would go so far as to be material for several abridged collections, I'm thinking.
When I try to be the genius who could simplify this equation, "The World According to Aubrey" becomes just that: according to me. Hmm,..I would rather start with the rhetorical approach: "How to Avoid Building Listener Fatigue Into My ******* System". wish me luck
So, here goes, I'm thinking I would;
pay attention to harmonics (and try to keep their proportional relationships as near to acoustic instruments that do Not produce really strong third or higher ( so, exclude reeds of sax, squeal of contact point between violin string and bow hairs, many cymbals, etc). My reasoning may stand to be corrected, but it is really acceptable to have a bit of even order stuff significantly below the harmonic structure of a sax or violin bowing. The same amount of third and higher harmonics below the fundamental of a flute?...not so ok.
Power supply noises? keep the spikes out! no spurious cut-offs allowed! Isolation transformers that get common And transverse noise out of wall mains are much loved, especially when they don"t raise your serial ohms the way RFI/EMI filters do (because that causes other problems that are fatiguing). Mercury rectifiers? TV damper diodes make nice, low noise, slow ramp up, zero switching noise rectifiers. Argon filled rectifiers have the same constant voltage drop of mercury devices seemingly without all the sensitivities that make the latter a pain in the butt to deal with (and if you break them, you don't have to call HAZMAT qualified types to bulldoze a house for you). Currently, I'm leaning towards damper diodes and a reg setup: I think a lot of listener fatigue is to be avoided with this approach.
What else? Hmm, I'm sure I've missed a lot. Please correct me if I'm wrong about any of this.
Best wishes to All - Aubrey
such an open-ended question, "What causes listener fatigue". Really it depends on so very many things that, I believe a person who is interested is forced to exercise genius, you know, the ability to simplify the equation, so to say. It does depend, in part, on which ears are listening. Even if ears were goods to be exchanged at will, we would still have brains interpreting what those ears would be hearing, so there is always that too.
I have noted that harmonics and their proportions can cause fatigue (Just listen to some first or second generation transistor amps through any speaker you like and it is glaringly obvious). Also, "spurious behaviors" (see the aforementioned amps) even when they can't be heard directly, screw things up in a nasty way for my ears. The list would go so far as to be material for several abridged collections, I'm thinking.
When I try to be the genius who could simplify this equation, "The World According to Aubrey" becomes just that: according to me. Hmm,..I would rather start with the rhetorical approach: "How to Avoid Building Listener Fatigue Into My ******* System". wish me luck
So, here goes, I'm thinking I would;
pay attention to harmonics (and try to keep their proportional relationships as near to acoustic instruments that do Not produce really strong third or higher ( so, exclude reeds of sax, squeal of contact point between violin string and bow hairs, many cymbals, etc). My reasoning may stand to be corrected, but it is really acceptable to have a bit of even order stuff significantly below the harmonic structure of a sax or violin bowing. The same amount of third and higher harmonics below the fundamental of a flute?...not so ok.
Power supply noises? keep the spikes out! no spurious cut-offs allowed! Isolation transformers that get common And transverse noise out of wall mains are much loved, especially when they don"t raise your serial ohms the way RFI/EMI filters do (because that causes other problems that are fatiguing). Mercury rectifiers? TV damper diodes make nice, low noise, slow ramp up, zero switching noise rectifiers. Argon filled rectifiers have the same constant voltage drop of mercury devices seemingly without all the sensitivities that make the latter a pain in the butt to deal with (and if you break them, you don't have to call HAZMAT qualified types to bulldoze a house for you). Currently, I'm leaning towards damper diodes and a reg setup: I think a lot of listener fatigue is to be avoided with this approach.
What else? Hmm, I'm sure I've missed a lot. Please correct me if I'm wrong about any of this.
Best wishes to All - Aubrey
I have some KEF Concorde III from c. 1980, and they certainly have the 'traditional' sound you describe.
When did bass reflex take over from sealed speakers?
(Also, see this post of mine http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/120847-what-causes-listening-fatigue-38.html#post3572825).
Last edited:
Good philosophy. It seems simple to achieve but it is not. Who the hell know how the right vocal supposed to sound like?! Recorded vocal sounds different with live vocal. Even mic amplified vocal depends on the amplifier. So people are get used to wide variations of accepted vocal and think that as long as you can recognize it then it should be ok.
I myself found that this right vocal do not have wide variation. I tweak the roll off slope after cabinet is final to get the perfect vocal.
Hi Lynn,
with "big dumb speakers" you mean "big dumb fullrange drivers" ?
I think that was a time, when tweeters were not mandatory, given a manufacturer was
able to produce a balanced and pleasing sound subjectively.
Also on axis frequency response was not such a dominant (sales) criterion.
IMO the main difference was, how upper-mid to high frequencies were presented. There are still
fullrange forums around the globe, and a wide range of manufacturers still produce fullrange paper
cones. There are examples for drivers trying to match characteristics of archetypical vintage models.
In the early decades of electroacoustics until the 50's there has been no strict separation between
"a musical instrument" and "a loudspeaker", at least not in the thinking of most consumers in
home entertainment.
Musical instruments and loudspeakers/radios as well were assumed having "an individual sound" which
was accepted.
In fact a large paper cone is a musical instrument in terms of radiation under angles.
In this example you can compare fullrangers of 100,130,160 mm diameter, of course all have a
whizzer cone:
Chassistest September 2010 - Ausgabe September 2010 - Lautsprecherbau-Magazin 2010 | Lautsprecherbau
Somewhere in the highs all 3 example drivers show a decorellation between on axis and off axis
radiation. The larger the driver, the lower is the frequency, where that decorellation starts.
It is about 2Khz for the 160mm model. There is not just beaming in highs, but frequency responses
and phase responses differ significantly under angles. Such a driver is not a phase coherent sound
source in highs, which has implications for stereo imageing and interaction with the room.
Most sound sources we know - especially string instruments - are not phase coherent sound sources too.
The (virtually) phase coherent loudspeaker - able to produce similar frequency response under angles even
in highs was a thing introduced when tweeters with membranes small compared to wavelength radiated came up.
It was assumed to be a good thing, having flat frequency response on axis and keep them similar
under angles. 2 things happened at the same time:
- Loudspeakers were not musical instruments anymore.
- Graphs became more important than "sonic impression".
Don't get me wrong: This is not complaining about "good old times" being gone, which would not
be authentic in my case anyway since i was born in 1965. But i know some vintage gear - even from 50's -
quite well and also experimented a lot with those drivers.
There have been systems of "better" and "lesser" quality during all times. And also that period of
change in how a loudspeaker is evaluated, might have been necessary.
It just seems that "something" has been lost and this something has to do with "listening fatigue".
Many technological steps did not lead to good results at the first time. Manufacturers had to learn
how to make a "well sounding" solid state amp e.g.
I am convinced, that all implications of the loudspeaker being a phase coherent sound source are not
aware until nowadays. I am also convinced, that many of the different schools in making loudspeakers
have roots in different aproaches how to mimick a "natural" - and diffuse - soundfield, like experienced
in many musical venues, especially with acoustic instruments.
There has been progress since the 50's, because we have more systems with reasonably flat on axis
frequency response, just "going back" seems not very interesting.
But i doubt that the "coherent speaker" paradigm is the best solution for the usual living room,
which is an acoustical small room and is typically untreated. There is also a non flat power response,
which comes with most typical 2-way speakers, being it bookshelf models or floorstanders:
Typically there is an accentuation in power response at/above the crossover frequency to the tweeter, which is
often around 2Khz...3,5Khz. That is a critical range of hearing and making speakers without
directivity indices of drivers matching at crossover frequency might not be good manners as well.
While some critical aspects of 50's equipment have been tackled successfully, new problems have
been introduced IMO, which are not widely seen as even being problems. The sheer number of posts
in this thread indicates, that there are serious questions from many listeners.
Systems with decorrelated off axis radiation in highs, should be able to introduce a more diffuse
soundfield even in usual living rooms and thus sound less fatiguing. But we also seem to need
some new techniques in getting around typical "multiway problems" in speakers.
I agree to that, given we have "believable" recordings. Our earbrain is most competent in
processing speech and vocals. Even slight irregularities show up quickly with speech and
vocals. There are few loudspeakers able to reproduce even the news anchor in "natural"
or at least "believable" manner.
Due to that some of the "dumb old drivers" - when mounted in a quality cabinet or baffle
having low coloration - outperform at least many sloppy designed multiway speakers.
Last edited:
I'll re-phrase it: when did the majority of hi fi speakers being sold change from sealed to bass reflex?
In the virtual Kef Museum, in the 1970s there were a few passive radiator designs and one bass reflex (a very large BBC monitor) with all the rest being 'Closed Box'.
Explore KEF - 1970s - KEF United Kingdom
In the 1980s, most models were still Closed Box, with a few large bass reflex and passive radiator designs.
Explore KEF - 1980s - KEF United Kingdom
By the 1990s, almost all models were bass reflex.
Explore KEF - 1990s - KEF United Kingdom
Just noting that the sound of audio systems in the 1980/90s may not have changed solely because of the CD. The bass reflex took over at about the same time also.
Yep - you hit it, and that's exactly what we listen to on them, Sinatra, Bennett, Como, Melt Tormé, Julie London - as well as Exotica such as Martin Denny, Les Baxter et al. They don't really have the bite for rock-n-roll.
Being big dumb boxes from 1958, they are perfectly suited to this music and can fill the whole house. They also make the TV a pleasure to listen to - if not to watch.
I never had much interest in KEF drivers but most Tannoys have been ported since at least '67.
The first speakers I built used Fostex drivers and the suggested cabs were either ported or back-loaded horns.
Back in the mid '70s we had some student lodgers and two of them built KEFKIT 3 in ported cabs though.
http://www.kef.com/uploads/files/en/museum_pdf/60s/KEFKITS_1_3_r.pdf
The first speakers I built used Fostex drivers and the suggested cabs were either ported or back-loaded horns.
Back in the mid '70s we had some student lodgers and two of them built KEFKIT 3 in ported cabs though.
http://www.kef.com/uploads/files/en/museum_pdf/60s/KEFKITS_1_3_r.pdf
Last edited:
I like how they spec the sensitivity rating. 9.5w = 96dB/m
Should have read 1 watt = ~86.5dB/m, but then again what were specs back then
I think that comes from the DIN (45500) specs current in the period. They decided 96dB was a sensible target and then specified the number of watts required to achieve it.
David
Regarding the rise in ported speakers (figurative, not literal) it probably was a few years after the Thiele/Small papers. As a young engineer I remember typing out "program WOOF" Fortran code. It would take TS parameters and create a crude curve of the speaker's bottom Octaves. Seriously, this was exciting stuff!
Vented boxes became more popular when we got better at designing them. There is a strong commercial advantage to being able to bump up your efficiency a couple of dB or add some real LF extension relative to the competition. Companies like AR lost the "bass purity" advantage over vented boxes when the industry learned how to design them properly.
Prior to this most vented bookshelfs had cabinets that were too small (many still were) with badly bumped response.
Most of the large-cabinet vented systems were bad all around designs with high efficiency woofers in a cabinet much too large. They would be seriously overdamped (way too much magnet) but they still managed to boom, primarily due to a lack of significant internal stuffing.
This also applies to any radio or phonograph. All are on a small baffle with serious cancelation and no true low frequency response. Upper bass cavity resonances are what gave them a sense of any bass at all. Look at Olson's old books to see what the typical open backed radio cabinet did for low frequencies.
Happy days.
David
Vented boxes became more popular when we got better at designing them. There is a strong commercial advantage to being able to bump up your efficiency a couple of dB or add some real LF extension relative to the competition. Companies like AR lost the "bass purity" advantage over vented boxes when the industry learned how to design them properly.
Prior to this most vented bookshelfs had cabinets that were too small (many still were) with badly bumped response.
Most of the large-cabinet vented systems were bad all around designs with high efficiency woofers in a cabinet much too large. They would be seriously overdamped (way too much magnet) but they still managed to boom, primarily due to a lack of significant internal stuffing.
This also applies to any radio or phonograph. All are on a small baffle with serious cancelation and no true low frequency response. Upper bass cavity resonances are what gave them a sense of any bass at all. Look at Olson's old books to see what the typical open backed radio cabinet did for low frequencies.
Happy days.
David
Yes indeed it was! Sure beat a calculator
Did the same on a Commodore Pet, remember wanting to upgrade the cassette section to handle metal tapes that were new, maybe speed up the transfer or increase capacity, maybe both! LOL yes exciting times