Don't you know anything?
Meters mean nothing at all. Can meters explain music?
This is why we have the digital audio disaster! Music isn't 1s and 0s! It can only be faithfully reproduced by simplicity like dragging a diamond through a plastic trench shaped like the original waveform...
The only meters you need are your ears! You say distortion, poor frequency response, poor damping and noise. I say sparkle, smoothness, natural colour and atmosphere...
Meters mean nothing at all. Can meters explain music?
This is why we have the digital audio disaster! Music isn't 1s and 0s! It can only be faithfully reproduced by simplicity like dragging a diamond through a plastic trench shaped like the original waveform...
The only meters you need are your ears! You say distortion, poor frequency response, poor damping and noise. I say sparkle, smoothness, natural colour and atmosphere...
Although not the topic of this thread, I do have a pair of small speakers with flat on-axis midrange response that sound dreadful. Congested, thick, not pleasant to listen to. With a broad EQ dip in the midrange they can be made tolerable. Still haven't figured that out. Maybe a waterfall plot would tell me something.
Then grab your ear leads and measure that resistor! Subjectivity only goes so far in design. Take your amp for example, was it designed without test equipement? Certainly not. If an output distorted can you put your finger on the bad componets by using only your ears? Most certainly not. Ever checked the calibration of a piece of audio equipement as required by the consultant, with a NIST traceable certified distortion analyzer? Tell him you did it all with your ears, not only would you be laughed out of the control room, but likely to be looking for a new job.
LOL - Didn't you pick up on the sarcasm🙂? I've been so caught up in fighting audio woo recently I've somehow managed to apply Poes Law to audio. I knew I should have added one of these - 😉
DW, I'm no subjectivist if you look at a few of the amps I've posted they're very objectively designed!
Peace!
DW, I'm no subjectivist if you look at a few of the amps I've posted they're very objectively designed!
Peace!
Should probably get back on topic...
I think multiband compression and high frequency distortion in particular is a surefire way to fatigue...
I think multiband compression and high frequency distortion in particular is a surefire way to fatigue...
Yes a wink would have been all that was needed. Sometimes the sarcasm gets mixed up with truely bizarro thoughts by some, who do think that way. 😉
PreAmp for listening fatigue attenuation
Listening "fatigue" – no one can deny that it really exists!
What causes it? Most probably mid and high frequency distortion(s).
Can we attenuate it, in a simple manner? Yes, but, doing that, we will surely sacrifice some of the emotion and soul of the music, of course.
Here is a simple preamp schematic, with a very subtle mid/high frequency attenuator, and a buffer output stage. Instead of two single opamps, it should be used a dual OPA2134.
Listening "fatigue" – no one can deny that it really exists!
What causes it? Most probably mid and high frequency distortion(s).
Can we attenuate it, in a simple manner? Yes, but, doing that, we will surely sacrifice some of the emotion and soul of the music, of course.
Here is a simple preamp schematic, with a very subtle mid/high frequency attenuator, and a buffer output stage. Instead of two single opamps, it should be used a dual OPA2134.
Attachments
If it was me that had them, I'd hammer the bejeezus out of them for a couple of hours with high energy R&R, push them as hard as I dared, away in a soundproof room if necessary. Then, come back at the finish, and have another listen ...
Yep, that's it ...
That's the 'dumb' solution, and I've heard a lot of tedious hifi that uses that very technique. The 'intelligent' way is a lot harder, and far more precarious - it's a very fragile solution, because of current levels of understanding ...
Your circuit seems to contain just a simple eq. Not really very useful as you'd notice the lack of treble before you noticed any 'improvement'. An eq is an eq... Also what's with the weird output stage. Seems completely unnecessary.
Loudness is probably one of the biggest culprits of what you describe. Maybe after that poorly set up TTs.
Loudness is probably one of the biggest culprits of what you describe. Maybe after that poorly set up TTs.
"Measure and listen and find the best blend of the two."
I think this is by far the most common.
The only person I've ever heard of routinely designing/building loudspeakers on this forum without personal use of measurement was (I believe) AndyG (..though that was quite some time ago, again - IF I'm remembering correctly).
Even then though, I'm certain he used manufacturers data for the designs - and I think he had a comfortable "format" for design that was essentially done over and over again with reasonably similar drivers.
Still, something like that is rare IMO.
The major exception to all of this are usually those people posting with a requests to make changes to an existing design.
Moving onto (subjective) blind-testing is something else altogether.
Determining preference for "A" vs. "B" - is just that a preference between the two choices at that particular time and that group.
That might get you a "hint" of the reason behind the preference, but that's about it. There just aren't enough controls for anything more than that; to many variables.
Of course the exception to this is if "A" is identical to "B" with *one* exception (..or rather allowing only *one* variable).
I think a well-controlled test like that is exceedingly rare. Did the larger Co.s you worked for do this?
I believe that Zaph (Zaphaudio.com) tried to come close to this format once to show that non-linear performance between two virtually identical designs provided preference for the lower non-linear distortion design (.."bookshelf"/standmount format). I'm not sure what became of it however. 😱
Of course even then, if preference is determined over a large sample, it might only be relevant to that one design. (..or as a guesstimate - relevant only to similar designs.)
With respect to ABX testing - I'd say it's *least* useful for something that is generally a more subtle effect.
Everyone is automatically biased to effects that are *most* obvious, and consequently we disregard those subtle effects. (..the exception is previous experience leading to a learned response that's specifically designed to disregard the obvious). Over time and experience however we often start to "dwell" on those more subtle effects, *particularly* NEGATIVE effects. (..and this is with everything, not just sound. A classic example is the near perfect partner that later becomes a person you just can't tolerate being around for a significant amount of time. You start fixating on those negative qualities that you didn't really notice before. Thus the phrase: "familiarity breeds contempt".)
Auditory "fatigue" fits well into this category - something you don't really notice right away unless it's accompanied by an obvious effect (..like a "tilted-up" high freq. response or a "bumped-up" presence region, etc..).
Ex. It's not uncommon for me to become fatigued by the sound emission from lighting in retail spaces. It usually takes some time however for me to be conscious of this UNLESS there is some lower freq. buzzing accompanying it, OR there is visual "flickering". And I've found myself literally hurrying-out of those buildings where I've been there for an extended time. On the other hand, If I go back in that space at a latter time - often months (..and IF the annoyance remains), I usually become aware of it MUCH faster.
Last edited:
Best recipe for guaranteed listening fatigue is the use of a (any) 25 or 28 mm soft dome tweeter at 1.5 a 2 kHz. I will repeat it over and over. This is one of the biggest mistake in high end audio of the last twenty years.
99.9% of the loudspeakers that I have heard with this implementation sound totally crap in the long run, even when they cost a million bucks and even when the dome tweeter has a totally flat response on paper from 500 Hz on up. Even mr Linkwitz finally understood it, thank god.
99.9% of the loudspeakers that I have heard with this implementation sound totally crap in the long run, even when they cost a million bucks and even when the dome tweeter has a totally flat response on paper from 500 Hz on up. Even mr Linkwitz finally understood it, thank god.
+1
It is better that the frequency range of the human voice 200-3000 is done by the same drivers, not different drivers with a crossover in between.
I concur. In two way experiments I tended to try to set the crossover at 2500Hz if possible, despite some people advising me that my woofer/mid couldn't cope with it. Now I have three way, I am setting it at 3000Hz or higher. I'm not thinking that the phenomenon is beyond measurement, merely that an apparently decent FR measurement at one amplitude is not revealing the complete picture.
I can't understand why anyone would want to use a 25mm or 28mm soft dome tweeter at 1.5kHz. Even at 2kHz, it's quite tough on the tweeter.
If one is crossing at 1.5kHz-2kHz, it's better to use compression drivers.
Regards
Mike
If only it worked that way Earl, I'd be a happy man. But it seems to go the opposite direction They get more annoying over time. 🙁