Back in the 1960's I had a Fairchild Compander. Maybe I still have it, built it from a kit as I recall. It did symetrical expansion or compression, but I used it as an expander. Worked well till a housesitter blew out the midrange of an AR3a... In the '80's I got a DBX unit, however I used DBX only for tape.
Anyhow there is something bothering me about this thread that I've been meaning to ask about for a few dozen pages. I've never heard a Klipschorn. I'm prepared to believe it would sound wonderful. That being said, why (if I am understanding correctly) are people asserting that a high efficiency speaker, like the Klipschorn, is not fatiguing whereas abysmally low efficiency speakers, such as the acoustic suspension ones I favor are fatiguing? Granted acoustic suspension produces more heat for the same acoustic output.
And why are people (not necessarily you, peteleoni) recommending oversized amplifiers? I, for one, am convinced from taking Pano's speaker voltage test.
While I have never heard a Klipschorn I have tasted sweet potato pie and I thought that it was vile. It may have been the recipe.
The two aspects go hand in hand. Most speaker people are convinced that amplifiers are 'sorted', just plunk a reasonable one in place, and if the sound's 'wrong' then it must be the speaker's fault. However, IME, this is completely wrong - most amps cause audible problems when they're asked to work hard, for a variety of reasons, so the easiest solution is to make sure the amp is just loafing along, working deep inside its comfort zone when producing sound at reasonable listening levels. Two ways of doing this: super efficient speakers, which need a fly's fart of energy to produce sound, or uber-muscular amps, Schwarzeneggar working out with a 'ladies' toning hand weight ...
Sure. But that's not what we are talking about. We aren't talking about a system that pours sweet pancake syrup all over everything to make it "good". Those systems certainly exist, I have one in my living room. It's meant to sound pleasant above all, and it does.
I think the term "bad recording" may be getting in the way here. Certainly a playback system won't turn a bad recording into a good one, nor vice-versa. If the recording suffers from limited bandwidth, noise, distortion, poor mic placement or other ills, the playback system won't fix that. But that's not what is being claimed.
What we are talking about is a system that is so good, that what you think are bad recordings turn out not to be so bad after all. They still have their faults, but they matter much less. When the system gets out of way some amazing things start to happen. In a recording with the afore mentioned faults, those faults no longer get in the way, as they do on typical systems. The best systems somehow allow you to hear past the faults to the music below. Yes, you still hear the faults, but they don't matter as much - they don't seem to be part of the music or get in the way. The faults stand apart from the music, you can hear them a separate things. Well, maybe not limited bandwidth, but even that becomes a lot less of a bother.
Yes, its still a flawed recording, with all its faults - but the faults don't get in the way and thus aren't nearly as annoying. You can enjoy the underlying music and ignore the faults. Really remarkable when you hear it.
Good recordings are, of course, wonderful on a system like that. But many of the bad ones will reveal some wonderful and very listenable music underneath - once you can hear past the faults.
Here is a little more on the subject from a recent thread:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/ever...rements-double-blind-test-14.html#post3598131
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/ever...rements-double-blind-test-17.html#post3599380
Well that's what I was talking about - an extreme example for someone who comes at this whole issue from an extreme position. Consider the context next time before you jump down someone's throat. You took it way too serious.
Geez... I'm glad I'm not the only one that thought it was an awful recording! 😱 And that was before I knew there was another thread about it. 🙂 I was beginning to doubt my own 2 ears - thinking most recordings are done reasonably well. Then I drug out some CDs done back in the late 80's, early 90's and was happy once again my system (and more importantly, my ears) were not failing me. 😀
The key aspect is the ease with which this is possible, if the mind can do this with no effort, it's relaxed while doing the separation.
An analogy: you're talking to someone, have absolutely no difficulty understanding them, engrossed in the discussion - in a quiet room. Then it starts to rain, heavier and heavier on the tin roof; a loose shutter on a window starts to bang against the frame, at odd moments; a line of cars goes up the road outside, revving their engines constantly; someone turns on a radio in an adjacent room, mumbles away with music and talk. Layer upon layer of possibly distracting sound is added to the mix - yet the whole time you have no problem continuing the conversation, the person you're talking to still sounds the same as he did at the beginning, when there was no "distortion" in the sound entering your ears ...
That's how a 'correct' system works, the same principle in action allows 'messed-up' recordings to "work" ...
Fair enough. But that's not what we we're talking about, you seemed not to understand that.
BTW, I'm always serious, you know....
It's intended to point out that one has can easily maintain, or in fact totally change focus, if all the cues are cleanly "reproduced". So, if the person you're talking to is becoming boring 🙂, you can 'tune' him out ... and start to listen to what is on that radio in the next room. Same thing in a live, orchestral concert - there's an unexpected rustling noise coming from besides you, so you pull down the mental 'fader' in your brain on the big musical event in front of you, and start to 'see' what's causing that rustling ...
Yes, part of the survival kit, and us humans are very good at it - provided the sound clues aren't too damaged ...
Yes, part of the survival kit, and us humans are very good at it - provided the sound clues aren't too damaged ...
Here is but another nifty source of fatigue. Are your speakers the same speakers Monday as they are on Wednesday? I can tell you that loose cone ported speakers are sickeningly dependent on barometric pressure and temperature. You can push test the woofers in on my 801 series 3 speakers one one day and watch them slowly settle back in, the next day they will be tight as a drum. Bass response is obviously accordant.
Puke.
Cue Forrest Gump: " My Mama always said those loose suspension low efficiency ported woofers are lak ah boax ah Choc-o-lits, you never know a-whut your gonna ge-it" Puke
Again chalk one up for PWK and his followers for using pro audio style stiff suspension woofers in sealed cabs. Now put the mid range driver back in just as Paul did and we will probably have a real reference monitor that doesn't need to be named "Sybil"
Puke.
Cue Forrest Gump: " My Mama always said those loose suspension low efficiency ported woofers are lak ah boax ah Choc-o-lits, you never know a-whut your gonna ge-it" Puke
Again chalk one up for PWK and his followers for using pro audio style stiff suspension woofers in sealed cabs. Now put the mid range driver back in just as Paul did and we will probably have a real reference monitor that doesn't need to be named "Sybil"
As long as there is a small leak in the enclosure this is not an issue. Enclosures should not be air tight as many believe or this will happen. You can easily calculate that a 15" speaker in an air tight box could move almost an inche with possible variations in barometric pressure. That's why I don't seal my cabinets.
Then it would not be acoustic suspension if that was the intended design. All designs would be adversely affected if this is a simple 'leak' unless designed in.
One of my biggest struggles is when temps drop prepping for a outdoor concert. How would one compensate for this? I lived in the U.P. for a number of years (three winters) working outdoors in temps > -90°f, of course not in these extremes, but much colder than any artificially heated space was always a major issue with bass reproduction. Sure puts those simple barometric changes look wimpy in comparison.
Naw, we're talking pinholes- there needn't be a large hole, just enough for pressure to equalize over the course of days.
I think we agree largely here- the bad recording aspects are not eliminated, but there is enough attention being paid to the performance that they're easier to ignore. Improved system resolution allows a less "distracted" listening experience, as what is produced, overall, is closer to "right". My own rig sounds exciting on some pretty bad recordings- huge headroom is critical to that, so that every last thread of dynamics that the recording doesn't ruin, are still there.
Pinholes, have YOU ever modeled what happens?
Guess not or you wouldn't have dismissed this so readily.
Guess not or you wouldn't have dismissed this so readily.
There *has* to be a pinhole otherwise the cone would always be pushed in or out by atmospheric pressure. The equivalent of a very bad DC offset.
I'll bet money that it's completely insignificant in the model.
Last edited: