Poll: speakers parallel or inclined to the listener?

[Jud]

I'm not forgetting or neglecting it.

 

I'm simply suggesting what my tweeters do at 30 kHz is irrelevant to their audible limitations.

 

(Upsampling won't generate content at 30 kHz that wasn't there to begin with).

 

Not sure what you're saying- if it's irrelevant, why is this an argument against higher sample rates?

 

Regarding high frequencies not being in Redbook material to begin with: The purpose of oversampling isn't to add ultrasonics. It's to be able to use a filter that *removes* ultrasonics without causing excessive ringing. It should be able to do this regardless of sample rate at the DAC input, since the filter should see 352.8 or 384kHz in any case.

 

Edit: Actually the filter should see DSD-type rates in the MHz range, since the reconstruction filter follows the sigma-delta modulator.

 

Further edit: Please feel free not to respond. I've sidetracked the thread, for which my apologies.

[semente]

Not sure what you're saying- if it's irrelevant, why is this an argument against higher sample rates?

 

Regarding high frequencies not being in Redbook material to begin with: The purpose of oversampling isn't to add ultrasonics. It's to be able to use a filter that *removes* ultrasonics without causing excessive ringing. It should be able to do this regardless of sample rate at the DAC input, since the filter should see 352.8 or 384kHz in any case.

 

Edit: Actually the filter should see DSD-type rates in the MHz range, since the reconstruction filter follows the sigma-delta modulator.

 

I think he was talking about recordings with high sampling rates, not upsampling or oversampling and filtering...

 

But I've analysed all the HiRes samples that I could get my hands on and when there was content above 20kHz, it was usually below -90dB.

 

R

[Jud]

I think he was talking about recordings with high sampling rates, not upsampling or oversampling and filtering...

 

R

 

Sorry for one more OT, but:

 

The sample rate conversion and filtering take place in your DAC, which should remove any ultrasonics present in the input.

[semente]

Sorry for one more OT, but:

 

The sample rate conversion and filtering take place in your DAC, which should remove any ultrasonics present in the input.

 

(Last OT, promised)

 

Would it low-pass filter frequencies above 20kHz from say a 16-bit/88.2kHz?

[Jud]

(Last OT, promised)

 

Would it low-pass filter frequencies above 20kHz from say a 16-bit/88.2kHz?

 

Unless you have one of a tiny handful of NOS DACs, any PCM input below 352.8/384kHz will internally be converted to those rates. Then they'll be sigma-delta modulated to mHz rates. This bitstream will be filtered to remove ultrasonics and convert to analog. Input rates therefore should be pretty well irrelevant for anything other than which filtering is applied, the recording studio's, yours/your software player's, or the DAC's internal filters.

[wanta911]

Rather than trying to level the base of the speakers, you should try to have the tweeter axis pointing at your ears.

Your (803D) speakers' frequency response does change a lot with tilting:

 

 

GREEN and BLUE curves show the response 7º below and above tweeter axis respectively and this does have a drastic effect right where your ear is most sensitive (2-6kHz):

 

 

R

 

This post was really helpful as I have 803 Diamond speakers. One thing that was bugging me was what I would call "excessive high frequency" in my particular setup on some recordings at my listening position. To clarify, I am not talking about bright - it is not fatiguing at all, but to my ears it was somehow unnatural? Of course I picked a speaker that emphasises this HF but there is so much else to love

 

Anyway, I have the speakers almost parallel, the toe-in is very slight. This thread reminded me that I have the speakers angled forward, it is something I did based on the tweeters being so high, no other science or criteria was used. So this morning I adjusted the spikes to make them level without changing their position or toe-in. There is a noticeable difference at the LP that is a bit more musical to my ear when I tried a couple of reference tracks that in my opinion emphasised the treble a little too much before.

 

So if this means that the HM & HF is now more rolled off, then so be it - sounds good to me.

[mayhem13]

Here is my initial room response and correction for the CM7s. They do have the dip between 1 and 4 kHz, but there is no accentuated treble. If anything, it rolls off prematurely (I am guessing due to my ClassD Audio amp). This is with the wood floor and Persian rug in place, but the earlier one didn't look significantly different.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]15556[/ATTACH]

 

If that's in room response, that's not half bad Bill, and the scale of the graph makes it look far worse than it is. Ignore everything below 700 hz as that's the modal region and mostly influenced by the room. I don't see anything in that graph that suggests a shouty or fatiguing speaker at all.

 

The depression between 1-4khz is intentional BBC dip and was introduced by Rogers back in the day to compensate for poor off axis response from midrange drivers in the crossover region. Most people find it very pleasing and less fatiguing than flat. It also indicates the speaker was intended to be best enjoyed on axis. Re measure on the vertical axis of the midrange driver and I suspect quite a different result.

[mayhem13]

This post was really helpful as I have 803 Diamond speakers. One thing that was bugging me was what I would call "excessive high frequency" in my particular setup on some recordings at my listening position. To clarify, I am not talking about bright - it is not fatiguing at all, but to my ears it was somehow unnatural? Of course I picked a speaker that emphasises this HF but there is so much else to love

 

Anyway, I have the speakers almost parallel, the toe-in is very slight. This thread reminded me that I have the speakers angled forward, it is something I did based on the tweeters being so high, no other science or criteria was used. So this morning I adjusted the spikes to make them level without changing their position or toe-in. There is a noticeable difference at the LP that is a bit more musical to my ear when I tried a couple of reference tracks that in my opinion emphasised the treble a little too much before.

 

So if this means that the HM & HF is now more rolled off, then so be it - sounds good to me.

 

Just for future reference, all 1" dome tweeters will begin to roll off off axis at 1100hz and progressively worsen. How much of that makes it to your ears is entirely room dependant. That's why I'm so emphatic when I state their is NO set placement method that will provide the best results in all rooms. Best to experiment with toe in.

[wgscott]

If that's in room response, that's not half bad Bill, and the scale of the graph makes it look far worse than it is. Ignore everything below 700 hz as that's the modal region and mostly influenced by the room. I don't see anything in that graph that suggests a shouty or fatiguing speaker at all.

 

The depression between 1-4khz is intentional BBC dip and was introduced by Rogers back in the day to compensate for poor off axis response from midrange drivers in the crossover region. Most people find it very pleasing and less fatiguing than flat. It also indicates the speaker was intended to be best enjoyed on axis. Re measure on the vertical axis of the midrange driver and I suspect quite a different result.

 

Thanks. I'll give it a try.

[Musicophile]

If that's in room response, that's not half bad Bill, and the scale of the graph makes it look far worse than it is. Ignore everything below 700 hz as that's the modal region and mostly influenced by the room. I don't see anything in that graph that suggests a shouty or fatiguing speaker at all.

 

The depression between 1-4khz is intentional BBC dip and was introduced by Rogers back in the day to compensate for poor off axis response from midrange drivers in the crossover region. Most people find it very pleasing and less fatiguing than flat. It also indicates the speaker was intended to be best enjoyed on axis. Re measure on the vertical axis of the midrange driver and I suspect quite a different result.

Very useful insight. Thanks Mayhem.

 

My CM8 have a similar frequency to WGScotts CM7: (taken from a review, not measured at home, red line on axis, green line 10° vertically up, blue line 30° horizontally off)

 

 

Looks like I have the "BBC dip" as well and this could well be the explanation why I prefer the fully parallel.

 

Thanks to everybody for their contribution on this thread. It's been most enlightening.

[semente]

Douglas Harwood (BBD Research Department and creator of Harbeth) mentions the "BBC" dip in an article for Wireless Magazine named "Some factors in loudspeaker quality":

 

 

R

[mayhem13]

Very useful insight. Thanks Mayhem.

 

My CM8 have a similar frequency to WGScotts CM7: (taken from a review, not measured at home, red line on axis, green line 10° vertically up, blue line 30° horizontally off)

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]15598[/ATTACH]

 

Looks like I have the "BBC dip" as well and this could well be the explanation why I prefer the fully parallel.

 

Thanks to everybody for their contribution on this thread. It's been most enlightening.

 

I've always been a fan of understanding what it is we're hearing through measurements and fundamentals.........much better than the blind faith crap

[wanta911]

Very useful insight. Thanks Mayhem.

 

My CM8 have a similar frequency to WGScotts CM7: (taken from a review, not measured at home, red line on axis, green line 10° vertically up, blue line 30° horizontally off)

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]15598[/ATTACH]

 

Looks like I have the "BBC dip" as well and this could well be the explanation why I prefer the fully parallel.

 

Thanks to everybody for their contribution on this thread. It's been most enlightening.

 

This is great info as I have B&W speakers. I was aware of the BBC dip but it is nice to see the effect.

 

My confusion is that if you have the speakers parallel, then aren't you off-axis at the listening position?

[Jabs1542]

My confusion is that if you have the speakers parallel, then aren't you off-axis at the listening position?

 

Usually when the speakers are parallel and you're in the middle you are off axis. Being directly on axis would like having the speakers angled in 45 degrees pointing right into your face.

[wanta911]

Usually when the speakers are parallel and you're in the middle you are off axis. Being directly on axis would like having the speakers angled in 45 degrees pointing right into your face.

 

Absolutely correct. I was confused by Musicophile's quote below, paralell puts you off axis which means the larger dip is preferable?

 

 

Looks like I have the "BBC dip" as well and this could well be the explanation why I prefer the fully parallel.

 

[Jabs1542]

Yes, that was purposely designed (a.k.a. voiced) in his speaker.

[wanta911]

Yes, that was purposely designed (a.k.a. voiced) in his speaker.

 

Yes I understand that, but the designed BBC dip is clearly there on-axis (red line). It is even lower than the design dip when off-axis (blue line), which is what you would get with the speakers parallel.

[semente]

Actually I wouldn't call this a BBC dip; it's actually far more pronounced than the slight 2dB mentioned by Harwood

[Jabs1542]

Actually I wouldn't call this a BBC dip; it's actually far more pronounced than the slight 2dB mentioned by Harwood

 

I would agree - who knows if that was purposely by design or a byproduct of a component.

 

Regardless it is how the speaker was voiced and in theory creates a sound that you, the consumer, will want to take home.

[Musicophile]

I would agree - who knows if that was purposely by design or a byproduct of a component.

 

Regardless it is how the speaker was voiced and in theory creates a sound that you, the consumer, will want to take home.

I think it's typical of the mid-range B&W, see the CM7, CM9, and some other I've heard.

 

I like it, but I agree it is not what I'd call the most natural.

[mayhem13]

Actually I wouldn't call this a BBC dip; it's actually far more pronounced than the slight 2dB mentioned by Harwood

 

Then call it b&w dip then......or whatever you like, but it's the same theoretical variation to the FR that many people prefer in their listening when not being influenced by audiophile nonsense.

[mayhem13]

I would agree - who knows if that was purposely by design or a byproduct of a component.

 

Regardless it is how the speaker was voiced and in theory creates a sound that you, the consumer, will want to take home.

 

Which is it?...earlier you state it's voiced and now it's unintentional byproduct of passive components.

 

Trust me when I tell you that B&W are completely aware of the response of thier systems and voice them to a criteria. I'm not a fanboy of B&W, but also not a fan of confusing posts that only confuse those wishing and willing to understand the most useful system in the signal chain.

[semente]

Actually I wouldn't call this a BBC dip; it's actually far more pronounced than the slight 2dB mentioned by Harwood

 

Then call it b&w dip then......or whatever you like, but it's the same theoretical variation to the FR that many people prefer in their listening when not being influenced by audiophile nonsense.

 

I'll rephrase it to "it's more of a pronounced 7dB crevasse than a slight 2dB dip" if you prefer.

Mind you I do like the BBC dip "sound"; my previous speakers were old Spendors and they had a mildly recessed dip in the "presence" region that sounded just right for my taste (I listen mostly to "classical"):

 

FR at listening spot

 

The canyon in the CM range looks more like there's something "wrong" with the crossover...I can only speculate but perhaps they were trying to tame the nasty resonance peak from the kevlar cones with an overly low (in frequency) steep low-pass (look here).

It doesn't look like a "voicing" thing...

 

But you're obviously far more knowledgeable than I am so feel free to correct me.

 

Cheers,

R

 

 

 

P.S.: looking at Sphilie's measurements the tweeter appears to be high-passed too high...

[Jabs1542]

Which is it?...earlier you state it's voiced and now it's unintentional byproduct of passive components.

 

Considering its B&W I would assume it is voiced

[mayhem13]

I'll rephrase it to "it's more of a pronounced 7dB crevasse than a slight 2dB dip" if you prefer.

Mind you I do like the BBC dip "sound"; my previous speakers were old Spendors and they had a mildly recessed dip in the "presence" region that sounded just right for my taste (I listen mostly to "classical"):

 

FR at listening spot

 

The canyon in the CM range looks more like there's something "wrong" with the crossover...I can only speculate but perhaps they were trying to tame the nasty resonance peak from the kevlar cones with an overly low (in frequency) steep low-pass (look here).

It doesn't look like a "voicing" thing...

 

But you're obviously far more knowledgeable than I am so feel free to correct me.

 

Cheers,

R

 

 

 

P.S.: looking at Sphilie's measurements the tweeter appears to be high-passed too high...

 

 

The mid/high crossover is 1st order where I would expect the phase overlapp at 4khz to off or near inverted. The FST driver has a natural acoustic rolloff right at 4khz so when an additional 1st order electrical is applied, it no longer matches the rolloff of the summed acoustic/electrical of the tweeter. Here's where the depression comes from, phase induced. Because the mid is already 180 phase inverted from the 2nd order high pass to the woofer.

 

And please don't misunderstand me, I like B&W speakers as a flavor and that's how I approach listening and voicing. It often surprises me how many here swap source components like dirty socks but hold on to speakers like security blankets! Lol