Are we just kidding ourselves?

[AlainGr]

Please allow me, or skip when you're not much "sensitive" anyway ...

 

 

 

So Alain here is one of Phasure's customers. Maybe Alain doesn't see himself as a 100% representative, but I think he is. How ?

Well, the quote tells a few things;

 

First there's the attitude of "d*mn it, I surely believe in people perceiving differences such and so, so why the f*ck doesn't that happen to me".

Next this is openly (!) expressed like that, all the way.

Later there's the sheer victory in being able to hear "a difference" for the very first time. Congrats from everybody all over that it happened.

Throughout there's always spending the money on in-between-the-line advices from others. This is $1000+ here and $1000+ there.

Also throughout there's my counteract of "don't do this and don't do that" with hopefully the good reasoning behind it. Often this has to goo off line without hurting others or being disrespectful.

 

No-way either person from each camp will claim truths without first experiencing themselves and which sometimes cost a lot of $$. But this is two-folded :

Don't spend the $$ because you believe in camp a and keep quiet about it.

Spend the $$ because you believe in camp b BUT be the first to tell that the money was wasted and be totally honest about it and next help all of the others with it. This can not come across as disrespectful because it can be trusted in the first place.

 

So Alain, tell me, are you a representative example or aren't you ?

And Alain will also know that when *I* step out of line, he will notify me. And because of that exceptional thing it is worth a tonne.

 

That's how we do it and I think it works well. But that's me. But you can also see how I put the "sensitive" into it, because I am like that anyway and I think it is important.

Most important of all is that I can trust everybody for the sheer 100%. And that all of the others can do that too.

 

blabla

Peter

Just to say that I sometimes answer "aside" of questions too But I have gone through little victories with the "team" and I don't mind being corrected because it is done in a respectful way. One needs to know where and when to listen.

 

And I can swear that since I regularly participate at Phasure, my ears have grown. Now, when I pass on Halloween time, I don't need to put false rabbit ears anymore

[Fokus]

tells (regularly) about our auditorial system. ... what you could do is start a thread about this

 

 

Are you aware of the fact that many internet audio forums over the past ten years have done their darnedest best to drive the real authorities away? That their teaching was valued as just another opinion, never more, so that instead of learning everyone could safely stay in their own private cloud cuckoo land?

 

Anathem: lock up the scientists and engineers, lest they influence the 'real' world and shatter dreams.

 

 

 

And what that about this 'proven' 40kHz anyway?

[PeterSt]

Man, that sounds sad.

I hope I understood it correctly.

[PeterSt]

Yes, but you sometimes get it wrong too, like you did with your member,(and my online friend) Jeff C from Brisbane almost 5 years ago. (grin)

 

Of course I am wrong often Alex, but I guess this is encouraged for when most is based on empirical finding.

 

Btw of course I recall Jeff but I don't recall anything going odd between us ?

 

Edit : I just looked, and communication with Jeff stopped when he handed over to you. So happy anniversary, because this is 5 years and 3 months ago today.

But nothing strange that I can see (unless me starting to know you is the issue - haha).

[sandyk]

Hi Peter

Does this phrase ring a bell ?

 

"Heading for a job outside of IT now. ;-)"

No reply required. I'm off to bed now anyway.

Regards

Alex

[PeterSt]

Apologies if what I am going to say has already been said.

 

First, there is the fact that a great many people don't have amplifiers, preamplifiers, or speakers that will reproduce a signal beyond 20k. There has been some interesting and thoughtful discussion on this point, so maybe this isn't an issue. I’ll let that one go for the moment.

 

This is exactly the one you should not let go, because anything which can not follow will produce distortion. Speakers are bound to be the first.

This means that any higher frequency which can be passed - like 25KHz - will distort on e.g. the speaker which can do 22KHz only. This does not imply a "no difference to be heard" but the hires sounding worse. If the 25Khz is in the material to begin with of course.

 

Then there's the bit depth. I'm finding it interesting that the s/n ratio on most really good amplifiers is in the 94 - 106db range, which is no where near the 144db required to take full advantage of the s/n of a 24 bit recording. Do amplifiers even exist that have a noise floor that low?

 

Yes. But notice that this starts with the source (DAC) to show the noise at -164dB when the amplifier has a gain of 20 (dB). This is less likely.

 

The bit depth is not really the same as the sampling rate of course with the notice that a bith depth of 24 against a sampling rate of e.g. 176.4Khz is highly overdone for the bit depth. I mean, if we first take 16/44.1 as a base and see that the sampling rate is increased by a factor of 4, the bit depth increased by a factor of 256 (8 bits more) *is* over done. There is quite some more to say about this like math granularity, but outside that the implied dynamic range of more than 144dB can never be utilized in the first place.

Bit depth is important, but when talking hires it can not be regarded important for the implied dynamic range.

 

Then there is the rest of the signal path (mic preamp, eq, compressor, console, etc...). If any one of these is not up to the capability of the file format, doesn't the idea of calling the end product "high res" fail"?

 

Yes. But not all music(al instruments) depends on microphones. Whether the remainder (like compressors) is used is something else, but when utilized properly nothing much is lost (except for implying other kinds of distortion); I am sure this has been dealt with in the thread.

 

I know there are people who believe that high res is snake oil

 

No, it won't be snake oil because technically it exist and it should be for the better only. Still, if the net work out ends up in distorting our tweeters then we must be careful. So snake oil is an intended negative and don't ask me whether the Sony's et all have gurus in the company who could clearly define the distortion of tweeters but next go ahead of producing hires.

But I think this goes too far. So snake oil it is not, but utilize it for the better could be something that we find difficult to achieve.

 

How given all of these facts, is it still possible for high res audio to provide any benefit at all?

 

Theoretically yes, but as theoretically also no. This now depends on how good we are able to render Redbook (that assumed to be the reference) and this world is far from sought out if you'd ask me. At least me myself am able to progress with Redbook say each few months, while with hires I can't achieve a thing because there's nothing to improve.

 

so much as I'm wondering if the equipment isn't keeping us from ever being able to hear it.

 

I would rather think that first we ourselves must be able to hear it. And I don't think we can with some sense.

 

Lastly, but this will have been said too : If we again take Redbook as the reference and try to improve its rendering, then it is totally obvious that when the sampling rate would be have been higher in the first place, all the problems would have been solved. This of course makes it Hires. But notice the different angle, because I now solve the Redbook issue with technicalities Hires has solved inherently. This is not related to being able to let render our equipment the (Hires) material, also not whether we can perceive it, but how we can solve reconstruction and filter (ringing) distortion just by simply higher the sampling rate (eh, during the recording that is). This not suddenly brings any need or virtue to be able to perceive undistorted higher frequencies. What it does is avoiding "reconstruction" which term sounds wrong to begin with and which implies ringing and such.

but

What it can thus bring as a negative is those higher frequencies (which just are not there in Redbook when properly filtered) now distorting our tweeters.

 

Hires is not about enabling higher frequencies to go into our brains but it is about how technically the "flawed" means of Redbook is overcome. I'd call it an aid (if not the contrary for the net work out).

 

If I would focus on Hires, I would digitally filter it again (beyond say 20KHz) for the sheer reason of my thinking that

a. we won't really perceive it anyway;

b. it won't be hurting our speakers and all, which is to be read as avoiding distortion.

 

Peter

 

PS: Notice there is a difference between higher frequencies in music which will enter our tweeters easily and the far more high frequencies because of the digital stepping energy, even after (huge) upsampling - which may be filtered automatically by analogue means (such as interlink bandwidth etc.).

[alfe]

The checksum embedded in a DDP file only guarantees the integrity of the DDP file, not the resulting CD. That checksum never makes it to the cd. My understanding of the red book standard is that it includes a reed-solomon error correction, so the the probability that an uncorrected error will go undetected is vanishingly low.

 

In QC there is a bit to bit verifier to check the integrity of the replica using the checksum

Quality Control

Reed-Solomon error correction (scratches,finger print...)is playback algorithm and it will not correct any moulded corrupted data.

[mayhem13]

For Peter St........In regards to HF reproduction, yes in fact the topics being discussed are all kidding aside, silly. One only needs look at the HF response of the finest tweeters in the world to see the ragged waveform above 15khz and the extreme droop even slightly off axis. Real world hearing perception testing has proven time and time again that even what goes on above 15khz or so simply doesn't matter.

 

Baby steps all skipped for many before the creation of CA. Focusing on the extreme while skipping the fundamentals in their own systems. How many here have as a primary system whose speakers are on stands at near ear level? Do they all 'know' that such an alignment creates a huge response suckout in and around 250hz? Will these same 'audiophiles' ignore it yet argue the virtue of USB and SATA cables to the death? There's so much acoustic fundamentals skipped over for the obscure and cutting edge. Many would find that they'd never be wanting for anything in their systems again if they just took a good look at the starting line again. That's my frustration and my purpose when I post here. Know exact

what's in your box before adding to it.

 

I suggested a while back of having a measurement suite for loan/lease here and it never went anywhere. Are people not interested in seeing the response of their system and room? Are they in denial? Probobly. They enjoy the simplicity of plug and play. Sorry folks but anyone vested in this hobby will tell you it's far more difficult and time consuming than click, push play and listen. But that's what today's secondary high end industry sells.......quick fix plug ins for tweekers.

[alfe]

For Peter St........In regards to HF reproduction, yes in fact the topics being discussed are all kidding aside, silly. One only needs look at the HF response of the finest tweeters in the world to see the ragged waveform above 15khz and the extreme droop even slightly off axis. Real world hearing perception testing has proven time and time again that even what goes on above 15khz or so simply doesn't matter.

 

Baby steps all skipped for many before the creation of CA. Focusing on the extreme while skipping the fundamentals in their own systems. How many here have as a primary system whose speakers are on stands at near ear level? Do they all 'know' that such an alignment creates a huge response suckout in and around 250hz? Will these same 'audiophiles' ignore it yet argue the virtue of USB and SATA cables to the death? There's so much acoustic fundamentals skipped over for the obscure and cutting edge. Many would find that they'd never be wanting for anything in their systems again if they just took a good look at the starting line again. That's my frustration and my purpose when I post here. Know exact

what's in your box before adding to it.

 

Yep a good system is slightly more than computer and Usb cable.

Saying that and being your twin,Alex will beat the s...out of us.¨-)

[PeterSt]

mayhem,

 

All so true, to my belief. And as I say so often, a kazillion things are wrong with audio and it's a wonder we still perceive (good) music from it. But to bring another angle into the equations :

 

Since a year or so I concentrate on the woofer section of loudspeakers. This by sort of accident started to happen because of a speaker I partly designed myself and which we now sell and with some key words like DSP for the bass. Fine.

What I did there was tuning the speaker so that it won't exhibit audible distortion by means of taking some reasonable SPL (88) which it can take and next use the DSP to let it go to 19Hz super straight. Also fine. But now the result of that ...

 

With 5 pairs of them out there by now, it needs all re-learning of what we actually hear when listening to music through loudspeakers and how this is so totally different suddenly. I am used to it for a year by now, but the new owners (since 2 months or so) are not. Also notice the importance of how our auditorial system "works" and for example how it interprets low frequencies which is physiologically totally different from the higher ones. The kind of fun is that all more or less science about this can be directed to the trash bin because all has been based upon heavy distorting basses (woofers). So all what has been proven by long can now be proven to be wrong because of listening to undistorted bass and no person is used to it.

So that area too has been unexplored so far and it is totally crucial. But also : Not that I knew a year ago ...

 

Still it is so that same me started playback software which influences DAC behaviour which really works but which works with so infinitely less real influence than any super distorting loudspeaker does to begin with (also with me that year ago) while both are as important (as it seems, by listening). So example : when the software does not imply the least distorting playback means it would be nice to have such speaker, but it will be moot because the net effect would be very similar distortion.

 

Were it about that minute influence of SATA cables and what not what happens in-PC ... if not say thousands would be experimenting with that, at least I would not have known about it. And those thousands indeed easily don't own such speakers.

And so we need to do it all together. BUT try to see through what is actually causing which and this is the most difficult part. How can we blame those for trying and reporting improvement ? Or how can we blame the same people for not understanding a few lines counter post telling with powerful words how they can't be right without providing a lecture of a 1000 page lecture book ?

 

So now we're into tweeters. Maybe it has been brought up in this thread or in others but in similar realm of woofers I'd like to propose this little subject of it really being the reason why not only some don't perceive a difference between Redbook and Hires, but why for the very few (could be me only) Hires could be for the worse. And really, would that have been my idea way longer ago I would have brought it up for a good reason earlier on (like in the thread with Julf and the 22us and such).

But a 100 reasons still exist why I judge it like that while others still judge Hires for the better. Now if I would only be totally annoyed and unsatisfied with what I have, but I am not. I'm seriously approaching live instruments by now.

 

I feel that my English is not the best here. Sorry for that.

[manisandher]

With 5 pairs of them out there by now, it needs all re-learning of what we actually hear when listening to music through loudspeakers and how this is so totally different suddenly...

 

...Now if I would only be totally annoyed and unsatisfied with what I have, but I am not. I'm seriously approaching live instruments by now.

 

Well, I'm one of the 'lucky' owners of the speakers that Peter helped design (with Bert Doppenberg at BD-Design). I'm currently sitting in my listening room listening to Hadouk Trio's 'Live at FIP' (an HDCD that I've ripped to 24/44.1 using hdcd.exe in dBpoweramp)... and I have to say that I too feel I'm 'seriously approaching live instruments' now.

 

No kidding...

 

Mani.

[Paul R]

For Peter St........In regards to HF reproduction, yes in fact the topics being discussed are all kidding aside, silly. One only needs look at the HF response of the finest tweeters in the world to see the ragged waveform above 15khz and the extreme droop even slightly off axis. Real world hearing perception testing has proven time and time again that even what goes on above 15khz or so simply doesn't matter.

 

Baby steps all skipped for many before the creation of CA. Focusing on the extreme while skipping the fundamentals in their own systems. How many here have as a primary system whose speakers are on stands at near ear level? Do they all 'know' that such an alignment creates a huge response suckout in and around 250hz? Will these same 'audiophiles' ignore it yet argue the virtue of USB and SATA cables to the death? There's so much acoustic fundamentals skipped over for the obscure and cutting edge. Many would find that they'd never be wanting for anything in their systems again if they just took a good look at the starting line again. That's my frustration and my purpose when I post here. Know exact

what's in your box before adding to it.

 

I suggested a while back of having a measurement suite for loan/lease here and it never went anywhere. Are people not interested in seeing the response of their system and room? Are they in denial? Probobly. They enjoy the simplicity of plug and play. Sorry folks but anyone vested in this hobby will tell you it's far more difficult and time consuming than click, push play and listen. But that's what today's secondary high end industry sells.......quick fix plug ins for tweekers.

 

Ah - so well put!

 

Dumb question perhaps, but why would having the tweeters at or close to ear level create a suckout around 250hz? Certainly doesn't seem to happen here, but then the speakers are only 4" off the deck.

 

-Paul

[esldude]

Ah - so well put!

 

Dumb question perhaps, but why would having the tweeters at or close to ear level create a suckout around 250hz? Certainly doesn't seem to happen here, but then the speakers are only 4" off the deck.

 

-Paul

 

Cancellation from a floor reflection. Has nothing to do with the tweeter other than the tweeter is connected to the woofer (usually) so having tweeter at ear level puts woofer or midrange in place that causes the suckout.

[gmgraves]

Censoring content is not an evil thing. For instance, to ask for, or even to require, a certain level of conduct in a public forum is neither evil, against the constitution, nor even undesirable. No more than requiring a certain level of scholarship and rigor to publish in a peer reviewed journal.

 

The simple fact is the hue and cry of "censorship" is used as a bullying tactic here, just as it is used by certain political parties. Actual censorship here is so mild and so uncommon as to be pretty much nonexistent.

 

On the internet in general, when you consider how very few of the loudest bullies have little or no idea about what they are really talking about, and then resort to SCIENCE (in capital letters) as a defense, along with sneering and derision for anyone foolish enough to question their great wisdom... well! Should anyone wish to prove that to themselves, just take note of how very *very* few people really understand Shannon/Nyquest, and the great number of people that draw erroneous and unfounded conclusions based upon a "popular" understanding of it. Hah!

 

What Teresa is seeing and reacting to is a real problem. I grant you that it cuts both ways, but by far, that largest number of people raising the hue and cry are those with the poorest understanding, and in many cases, the least time and effort invested into the hobby. It can certainly be infuriating. We have people running around saying bit identical files can sound different when played back from the same media on the same playback chain. (I am convinced they can not, but am willing to be convinced otherwise. Not easily convinced, but willing to look at evidence.) At the same time, we have people discovering that USB cables can make playback sound different. (I believe they can, but am willing to be proved wrong. Has not happened so far.)

 

Those two subjects are examples of subject that often get conflated and confused, and spread FUD like wildfire.

 

Discussion on the subjects can be enlightening. Listening to someone preach their version of the "true" gospel - not so much. Especially when they have decided that something is true for the whole world and demand that everyone agree with them.

 

 

Denying someone the right to voice their opinion is denial of the freedom of expression IMHO, and banning these people from posting their opinions here WOULD constitute censorship. I agree with you that censorship on some level is acceptable and even desirable (such as the Hollywood censors of the 30's, 40's, 50. and part of the 60's. If you watch a good film from that era, you simply don't notice that there is no dirty language, no nudity and no overt sex scenes and the violence was "sanitized" the story merely got told without offending any filmgoer. The censorship of those things just gave the writers a need to be more creative to get their points across. The censorship did, OTOH, protect kids from being exposed to things beyond their years or the overt violence that characterizes modern entertainment. Maybe the Hays and Breen offices went too far with the Motion Picture Code, but on the other hand, you didn't have kids walking into schools and opening-up on the students and faculty with automatic weapons, either - and this was an age when there was NO gun control). But censorship of people's opinions on a forum is just wrong headed, again, IMO. I've been on moderated groups where there were rules against name calling and overt personal rancor, but none of the moderators ever stopped anyone from voicing their opinions, as long as it was done in a civil manner. IOW, calling those with whom you disagree "dictators and scum", would not have been allowed, but those with the opinion that hi-res audio is valueless, would have been allowed to voice that opinion as often as they like -they would just have to express their opinions in a civil and respectful manner.

[sandyk]

Cancellation from a floor reflection. Has nothing to do with the tweeter other than the tweeter is connected to the woofer (usually) so having tweeter at ear level puts woofer or midrange in place that causes the suckout.

 

Surely the problem isn't so severe provided that the floor is carpeted , and not just a polished wooden floor ?

Perhaps Anthony has measurements that show a carpeted floor gives very little relief in that respect ?

I have had a similar system in both types of rooms, and the carpeted room generally sounds more neutral.

[mayhem13]

Surely the problem isn't so severe provided that the floor is carpeted , and not just a polished wooden floor ?

Perhaps Anthony has measurements that show a carpeted floor gives very little relief in that respect ?

I have had a similar system in both types of rooms, and the carpeted room generally sounds more neutral.

 

Carpet does absolutely nothing to combat floor bounce cancellations typical to stand mounted speakers. It can attenuate frequencies within its physical absorption range though.....leaving behind the ceiling to give you a nice, solid, smearing first reflection.......not desireable at all. Lol. The more one looks at stand mounted two ways, the more compromises arise and it's plainly visible why their development grew in the first place.......aesthetics, space limitations and nearfield listening.

[sandyk]

I don't use stand mounted 2 ways though, as you are aware. I would still love to replace the 47uF and 100uF XOver electros though if I could work out a way to get at them without stuffing the glued in woofers !

[Jud]

I'm very glad that Peter seems to have helped get us back to a more productive discussion.

 

I'm here primarily to learn; if I have enjoyable chats with friends along the way, so much the better. That means if I'm wrong it's wonderful, because I've learned something new. That seems to me to be part of what makes Peter's forum helpful: people don't seem to be emotionally invested in being right or proving others wrong.

 

With the number of people posting here, it's impossible for Chris to moderate everything, even if that's what he wanted to spend his time doing. So the type of forum we have is really up to us. I'd put out the following as a couple of thoughts for helping to make it a friendly and productive one:

 

- People are more likely to accept whatever it is from you - including information in a forum - if you *present* it to them in a friendly way, rather than shoving it at them insistently, or dropping it from above on the poor gits who are so ignorant they don't know it already or so dumb as to believe something else.

 

- You get one, maybe a couple chances. After that, whoever isn't persuaded is going to remain that way, so accept that for the fact it is and move on.

 

- You create what you fear. That means if you fear forums in which "one opinion is just as valid as another," and thus don't provide the forum with the benefit of your knowledge, you are helping to create a forum long on opinion and short on knowledge - just what you fear. No, not everyone will believe what you say, even if it is proved, like the Whittaker-Shannon-Nyquist sampling theorem. See above - accept that fact and move on. Take deserved pleasure in adding to the knowledge of those who want to learn.

 

Just some thoughts - free advice, worth every penny I'm sure.

[sandyk]

No, not everyone will believe what you say, even if it is proved, like the Whittaker-Shannon-Nyquist sampling theor em. [/quote ]

Some here incessantly present their work as debunking the virtues of high resolution formats including DSD.

The theorems are being used definitively without taking into account the full capabilities of human hearing, including reaction to ultrasonics and fast rise times by whatever avenue,and MANY people are obviously actually hearing the virtues of hi res as claimed. Just because the vast majority of the public haven't a clue as to who any of these gentlemen are, doesn't mean that they MUST be imagining the improvements that they report hearing with recent DSD and 24/192 formats.

[thesurfingalien]

To PeterSt and mayhem,

 

Could it be that frequencies originating from high resolution material cause the tweeter of a given loudspeaker that cannot reproduce such frequencies to introduce a type of distortion that some can discern and label as favorable? Sort of as tube-amps (can) do with harmonic distortion?

 

Just an idea...

 

Peter

[Jud]

- You get one, maybe a couple chances. After that, whoever isn't persuaded is going to remain that way, so accept that for the fact it is and move on.

 

As I said, these are just my thoughts, that no one else need accept. I'm putting forth the thought above for the second - and in accord with what it says, the last - time.

 

This isn't a contest, where you only win if no one's left to disagree; and the concept of having "the last word" is kind of ludicrous in a forum with this many people. I think you're well aware, Alex, that I'm not someone who debunks the virtues of hi res or DSD. But at this point will continuing to argue - either way - be miraculously convincing to those "on the other side," or just terribly tiresome?

[Jud]

To PeterSt and mayhem,

 

Could it be that frequencies originating from high resolution material cause the tweeter of a given loudspeaker that cannot reproduce such frequencies to introduce a type of distortion that some can discern and label as favorable? Sort of as tube-amps (can) do with harmonic distortion?

 

Just an idea...

 

Peter

 

Peter, I think this is an interesting idea. Many people like the sound of an NOS DAC with RedBook, which results in demonstrable distortion. I know that when I listened to the oversampling settings in Audirvana Plus that I'd done by ear and compared it to PeterSt's XXHighEnd filtering, XXHE seemed to have the music coming from a quieter background. When I later looked at an iZotope RX3 frequency response graph of my settings, it looked like I was getting some aliasing energy right at the very top of my hearing range (16kHz and just a bit below), giving an almost subliminally "hotter" sound. I therefore adjusted the settings slightly, and don't feel I'm missing anything in my musical enjoyment as a result.

[sandyk]

But at this point will continuing to argue - either way - be miraculously convincing to those "on the other side," or just terribly tiresome?

Jud

Perhaps the thread has already become terribly tiresome, with no one from either side willing to concede anything ?

Surely, if people enjoy listening to hi res, they should be able to do so without being told how stupid they are according to last century's science,and that they could have saved 30% on the cost of their music collections.

It's downright insulting to keep insisting that so many are so wrong about what they report hearing from formats of higher resolution than 16/44.1 Even most music videos from the 90s in 16/48 sound markedly better than the subsequent release on CD, additional compression notwithstanding. Even though transmitted music videos from then suffered some compression of the audio at the transmission stage too. If anybody has a collection of music videos with 16/48 audio, try comparing them with the latest .aac audio versions on Youtube, where admittedly the video side can be quite good.

We have gone backwards with audio in many cases simply to conserve bandwidth, on the basis that a panel of EEs on some committee don't think that the difference matters, or is inaudible.

That's still happening now !!!

Telephony is another very good example of just how much worse the clarity of many phone calls has become since the analogue days. I speak here from the perspective of a retired Principal Telecommunications Technical Officer, where we went to a lot of trouble to ensure high quality voice transmission with both the older analogue networks and the more recent digital networks.

 

Alex

[mayhem13]

To PeterSt and mayhem,

 

Could it be that frequencies originating from high resolution material cause the tweeter of a given loudspeaker that cannot reproduce such frequencies to introduce a type of distortion that some can discern and label as favorable? Sort of as tube-amps (can) do with harmonic distortion?

 

Just an idea...

 

Peter

 

More than just idea.....but allow me to clarify.

[mayhem13]

My reply was very lengthy.....and the edit timed out!.....I HATE IT when that happens! But yes, it has been expressed by audiophiles, reviewers and listeners the 'virtues' of tweeters with 'air', 'detail', speed, etc.......but only when measured to see what they like?.......extreme near fundamental levels of odd order harmonic distortion because the tweeter is crossed too close to its resonant frequency. Amazing really.

 

Peter's point as to a tweeter producing excess distortion because it's being fed frequencies it's not capable,f producing?....Nope...doesn't happen in that direction of response. The wavelengths are too small to excite the drivers membrane and therefore nothing, nada, no sound whether it be the actual content or harmonic products.....so no worries there. He might be confusing it with frequency or content BELOW the drivers operational range....and in that care, yes, the WORST case scenario loaded with harmonic distortion products of all orders. Next time someone talks about 6" woofers or smaller, now you can tell them that's a midrange and not a woofer at all even though they're classified as such.