i am not sure about that definition 1st no scientific definitio should contain words like colorations What is coloration ?
lets talk about distortion or vibration or displacement something that can be measured in some way
Also color can be measured But for paints
Also transparency i guess can be measured But for glass
What i mean is that in audio are used terms that have nothing to do with sound or physics
I do not know why Maybe because audio people like prose more than science ? or they have problem with science ?
Again a definition that really does not define A very bad start
Then panel ... which panel ? there are 6 different panels in a speaker Incidentally the one most important is also probably the weakest beacuse has holes in hit One quite big
If we want stay scientific an effort to use scientific terms should be done If not is audio ramblings
So to me this mean that what really makes the soundstage is the mid high portion of the audio range For sure not the bass
I am sure that a speaker where the mid high section is decoupled by the bass cabinet will image much better than a speaker where the mid high section is mounted on the same baffle of the woofer
this is a good idea for instance
imho the more sensitive drivers to panel vibrations are by far domes They tremble for vibrations
They should be isolate by any kind of vibrations
Even very tiny vibrations will add to the domes electrical vibrations
But we should avoid terms like colorations
when a definition contains terms that cannot be defined objectively is not a definition
i think it is called gobbledygook ?
lets talk about distortion or vibration or displacement something that can be measured in some way
Also color can be measured But for paints
Also transparency i guess can be measured But for glass
What i mean is that in audio are used terms that have nothing to do with sound or physics
I do not know why Maybe because audio people like prose more than science ? or they have problem with science ?
Again a definition that really does not define A very bad start
Then panel ... which panel ? there are 6 different panels in a speaker Incidentally the one most important is also probably the weakest beacuse has holes in hit One quite big
If we want stay scientific an effort to use scientific terms should be done If not is audio ramblings
some small speakers render an excellent 3d soundstage
So to me this mean that what really makes the soundstage is the mid high portion of the audio range For sure not the bass
I am sure that a speaker where the mid high section is decoupled by the bass cabinet will image much better than a speaker where the mid high section is mounted on the same baffle of the woofer
this is a good idea for instance
imho the more sensitive drivers to panel vibrations are by far domes They tremble for vibrations
They should be isolate by any kind of vibrations
Even very tiny vibrations will add to the domes electrical vibrations
But we should avoid terms like colorations
when a definition contains terms that cannot be defined objectively is not a definition
i think it is called gobbledygook ?
The difficulty is that low frequencies spread out like a sphere due to their long wavelengths. They will be reflected by the room.
A dipole is one way to get more uniform radiation with frequency.
Ed
but the rear emission is out of phase with the front emission
I am sure that panels sound better if their back emission is damped Absorbed in some way Canceled
I am sure that panels sound better if their back emission is damped Absorbed in some way Canceled
Full-range dipoles have a great deal of bass boost to overcome dipole cancellation. See my article on how the Magnepan 1.6 works.
Ed
Ed
From the same source: "coloration - an audible 'signature' with which a reproducing system imbues all signals passing through it"
And do you know how they do that? By analyzing the reflection spectrum (or transmission spectrum for transparent items). Oddly similar to frequency response, don't you think? I deal with color basically every day at work, so I'm more familiar than most, and honestly attribute some of my fluency in that space to the experience I already had with audio.
Kind of like saying a color is blue? Or a window is foggy? Do neither of those descriptions mean anything? I could give a precise spectrum, a CIE value, or a Haze-gard measurement in casual conversation, but what would they mean to an average person: nothing. What do I put on QC documents: precise spectra, transmission, and color calculations. Different audiences have different requirements.
The subjective side of audio is an attempt to describe how something sounds to an average person and to give meaning to the raw data.
Again, you decided these words don't mean anything when actually they do to most everyone else, and typically it's a relatively precise meaning if you care to use the term like the industry does. There are some newer reviewers that use bizarre terminology, but larger publications tend to use a common set of terms in very similar ways. And the Holt source is from 1990, so if people choose to ignore the basic definitions that have been in use for decades, that's on them.
And in every Stereophile review, JA measures all panels with an accelerometer and reports on the ones with the worst issues, including a graph to show it. The data is there, but you seem to want to ignore it for some reason.
No one said "boxyness" was the full explanation of poor soundstaging. It is one particular type of error that can impact it.
Last edited:
No we can’t.
A poorly built box is the most likely cause, but not always. One of the “boxiest” speakers i have heard were OBs.
The cause can be anywhere.
dave
why boost bass when you can place the woofer in a box And actually i just see that Single pole bass and dipole on the mid highs
Like some Infinity models for instance where mids and tweeters are mounted on a panel above the bass box
or event the old dq10 Almost Because the cone mid have something on the back
again signature ... can we use more scientific terms ? why not flavour ... nuance ... scent
we are not talking of writing cooking dressing etc we are talking of a very physical phenomenon Sound propagation
then why not do the effort of using scientific terms ? it verges on ridiculous really
this is the approach that i like better But you cannot talk of transparency in audio Better you must define what transparency means for audio
What means a transparent speaker ? one made out of glass ? could be
For me transparent could mean a unit that does not distort the input signal for instance The straight wire with gain
I would use the same approach with speakers A speaker that cannot reproduce a flat signal 20 to 20k flat is not transparent
then we can decide how much transparency we need
yes but this is anothe field Not related to audio
subjective can be right for someone Objective is right for anyone Science is objective and i admire science much more than voodoo for instance
that is very subjective
I do not see the face of Christ in the coffee grounds like the do in Mexico
i am sure readers like that kind of prose If not they would not buy the magazines
i have become a little tired of the prose My main constraint now is space I love when great experts here show their measurements
The cabinets design and construction is probably the topic that intrigues me more
I will comment later on this because i have an urgency This is a very important topic that deserves some more talk
Thank you sincerely again for your very kind and valuable advice
^^^This^^^
Boxy sound is due to frequency aberrations in a certain region, these people put them at the 400Hz-2000kHz range and that gels nicely with my experience. These can be due to anything which can produce frequency aberrations and that include panel resonances as well as crossover issues.
It is relatively easy to make ANY speaker sound 'boxy' with an equalizer including open baffle ones.
It's a tradeoff. Hybrids have integration problems. Full-range dipoles lack deep bass.
Ed
Hi me again On this specific issue i have noticed that usually accelerometers are placed on side, back and top panels
I dont have specific data but my feeling is that any sound that is generated by these panels will reach the listening point with a level negligible if compared to the direct signal coming from the front of the speaker
However, I can't be sure
If I'm wrong then of course this signal, depending on the reflection of the walls, will arrive with a certain delay with respect to the main signal and this is certainly not good thing
In my mind the worse reflections come from the front drivers signals bouncing from walls ceiling and floor not from panels vibrations
Moreover I would like to see these accelerometers placed also and above all on the front panel which should remain absolutely still even during the bass blasts
One solution could be to segregate the woofer alone in a box and put the other drivers in a separate cabinet mechanically decoupled from the woofer cabinet
there could be some surprises like decreased distortion in the mids to improved soundstage
To give an example in the Wilson Audio catalog I would definitely go for a Watt plus Puppy solution instead of a monolithic three-way
without the slightest hesitation
Also because this way you can change either just the Watt or just the Puppy as you like
I am very surprised that the sat plus bass box is so unpopular
Hi this is very interesting and confirms a feeling That the critical panel is the front baffle
I would love to hear experiments with same drivers and open baffles of different stiffness and mass
If increasing the baffle stiffness and/or mass reduces the boxy effect that would be the end of the issue
As i said above some designers have posed big attention on front baffle design and construction
https://dynaudio.com/home-audio/confidence
Hi thank you very much for the very interesting advice
personally i did a rudimental test Using a pair of small bookshelves and an electronic xover i driven them full range at first and they were sounding quite boxy
Then i used a high pass 150 Hz cut and the boxy effect went away
The midrange and the highs were sounding quite clearer and the soundstage was also better
On this basis my interest shifted to subwoofer design and construction because i saw a solution to cover from 150Hz up
The goal would be to find one bass speaker that used up to 150Hz does not sound boxy if you see what i mean
I think that if we take a very boxy speaker like one with very thin panels and very light and we apply a variable high pass filter at a certain Hz for a certain level the speaker will stop to sound boxy because the vibrations will not have a substantial impact on the speaker response
Then the problem will be to find a bass box able to cover adequately the remaining range from that frequency down
The real problems start when we want to put all drivers in the same box imho Woofer being the worst offender of course
It can be done for sure But it complicates the design and construction of the cabinet and it is not necessary
Do you mean the panels are the sides of the speaker box, or do you mean panel style speakers like electrostatic?
i was referring to dipoles You have to manage the out of phase rear emission Not easy in my mind
I read an interview with a Snell designer talking positively about in-wall speakers This is of course an extreme solution
I like to walk around the speaker and hear nothing from the back
I much prefer front bass reflex port
I read an interview with a Snell designer talking positively about in-wall speakers This is of course an extreme solution
I like to walk around the speaker and hear nothing from the back
I much prefer front bass reflex port
It's absolutely not "out if phase" in terms of a dipole speaker. It's the essence of a dipole!
per coincidence I just heard asyl vox tintoretto planar (ribbon) speakers two weeks ago on the vienna hifi fair and for me it was the most impressive experience of the whole show - with several highly regarded other speakers like wilson, ATC or kii. the authority of the bass was incredible, besides all other qualities.
I can only suggest you try to find good dipoles you can listen to for your own experience.
It is the essense of a dipole. But the bit firing backwards is 180° out of phase with the front emissions. Thi causes a 6dB per ocytave roll-off below a frequency determined by he size ofthe baffle (bigger baffle goes lower).
dave
Last edited:
Good, I don't much care for it myself. Necessary evil, you know.
You wish people would condense something that takes a long time down into a short list. Please understand that many of us don't have all the answers.
Sometimes it's difficult to follow some unexplained procedure, just because someone asks you for a little faith. It may be wrong, but it may be right and it may be necessary experience. The only way to know is move slowly enough that you can keep up.. and don't get distracted when you choose to look too far ahead.
I think this glossary is pretty accurate in its descriptions.
https://www.acousticsfirst.com/glossary-of-sound-terms.htm
I didn't find "square sound", but I did find "coloration". I wonder if a "round" sound is synonymous with "not precisely localized, floating in space".
https://www.acousticsfirst.com/glossary-of-sound-terms.htm
I didn't find "square sound", but I did find "coloration". I wonder if a "round" sound is synonymous with "not precisely localized, floating in space".
I've done several in-wall installations with sealed speaker systems, and they can work very well indeed.
Best done when the house is being built, though.