Jump to content
IGNORED

Speakers are least important


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, STC said:

 

You are missing the point on the coloration caused by the cone material. Drivers may measure the same but the coloration by the cones can make the sound very different from another. Anyway, this has gone off topic so I shall stop here. 

 

IME it's all about the suspension - stiction is a word that is rarely heard, a type of friction or inflexibility wherein one part the material resists being moved with respect to another. Dynamic speakers always sound pretty dull, lack detail when cold; which is why I drive them hard, for a lengthy period, until the materials are "broken in" again, after some hours of not being active.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, Rexp said:

The mp4 sounds off, did you use this to exract the audio'

 https://www.onlinevideoconverter.com/

Maybe try aac instead.

 

 The .mp4 version is the same one without any conversion whatsoever, that I downloaded from Google and is an exact copy of it according to the Checksums, not that this proves anything. :P

Carly Simon mp4.jpg

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
10 hours ago, Rexp said:

The upconverted version does sound better, why would that be? 

 That's a very good question. Perhaps the reconstruction with more data points is part of the answer, but the resident know-it-alls dispute that original explanation from the designers of CD.

 Incidentally, I can also get a small improvement from low bit rate .aac by upsampling it to 576kbps which is the highest resolution available in .aac for my Video S/W.

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
58 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 That's a very good question. Perhaps the reconstruction with more data points is part of the answer, but the resident know-it-alls dispute that original explanation from the designers of CD.

 Incidentally, I can also get a small improvement from low bit rate .aac by upsampling it to 576kbps which is the highest resolution available in .aac for my Video S/W.

What I particularly like about is the complete lack of digital glare. What software did you use? 

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, Rexp said:

What I particularly like about is the complete lack of digital glare. What software did you use? 

 

TMPGEnc Video Mastering Works 5

 There is a more recent version of this S/W though.

 

 For those who missed the original post, these are the links to them that will be removed. later.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1jvvd9lu7t4qlbi/Carly Simon - You're So Vain.mpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/c91wp17uq8ptvu3/Carly Simon - You're So Vain mp4.mp4?dl=0

 

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
On 7/9/2019 at 12:43 PM, STC said:

You are missing the point on the coloration caused by the cone material. Drivers may measure the same but the coloration by the cones can make the sound very different from another. ...

Any (non-uniform) coloration shows up in the frequency response of a loudspeaker, otherwise you wouldn't hear the speaker "sounding very different."

Link to comment

IMO there is so much going on with LS design that an FFT / frequency response may be 10% of the whole picture only. Think about back chamber pressure and how not linear that is. Or open baffle. Baffle size/width etc. 

 

No-way? 

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment
17 hours ago, STC said:

But can you tell by looking at the response about the tonal accuracy?  I couldn’t but maybe others could. 

All I know is that your ears strictly deal with frequencies of air waves. The auditory system apparently perceives sound by performing an FFT-like operation on incoming sound signals. So if you hear a speaker "sound very different" then this should somehow show up in the frequency response of the speaker at your LP.

Link to comment

That's right.

 

There is a long triangular membrane with nerve cells all over it - different places resonate based on frequency and that info is "picked off" - it functions like a Fourier transform.

 

You can see it in my avatar, it is wrapped into a spiral shape.

Link to comment
On 7/11/2019 at 10:20 AM, STC said:

 

But can you tell by looking at the response about the tonal accuracy?  I couldn’t but maybe others could. 

 

Of course not. Trivially easy these days to create 'perfect' FR at some listening position by throwing some processing HP at it - the DEQX unit could do this years ago, and having heard this in action a number of times... it doesn't do an ounce of good with regard to resolving tonal issues arising from various distortion anomalies - you know, lipstick on a pig ...

Link to comment
15 hours ago, fas42 said:

Of course not. Trivially easy these days to create 'perfect' FR at some listening position by throwing some processing HP at it - the DEQX unit could do this years ago, and having heard this in action a number of times... it doesn't do an ounce of good with regard to resolving tonal issues arising from various distortion anomalies - you know, lipstick on a pig ...

 

Not sure what you mean by "tonal issues arising from various distortion anomalies." @STC was suggesting that "coloration caused by the cone material" can make a speaker "sound very different" yet this difference wouldn't show up in FR measurements. I simply disagree. Any consistent audible difference (obviously) will show up in FR measurements.

 

It's not clear relative to what reference the speaker may "sound very different." Let's say that comparing it's FR with the FR of a speaker that does not "sound very different" should show a difference.

Link to comment
43 minutes ago, Abtr said:

 

Not sure what you mean by "tonal issues arising from various distortion anomalies." @STC was suggesting that "coloration caused by the cone material" can make a speaker "sound very different" yet this difference wouldn't show up in FR measurements. I simply disagree. Any consistent audible difference (obviously) will show up in FR measurements.

 

It's not clear relative to what reference the speaker may "sound very different." Let's say that comparing it's FR with the FR of a speaker that does not "sound very different" should show a difference.

 

Why would you hold up a frequency response measurement as the holy grail?  They are typically taken with a single microphone instead of two ears and aren't attached to a human brain that has been attuned with thousands of years of evolution.  

Link to comment
45 minutes ago, emcdade said:

Why would you hold up a frequency response measurement as the holy grail?  They are typically taken with a single microphone instead of two ears and aren't attached to a human brain that has been attuned with thousands of years of evolution.  

 

I don't. At any listening position any audible difference between speakers will correlate with a (measured) FR difference at that LP. That's basically all I said.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Abtr said:

 

Not sure what you mean by "tonal issues arising from various distortion anomalies." @STC was suggesting that "coloration caused by the cone material" can make a speaker "sound very different" yet this difference wouldn't show up in FR measurements. I simply disagree. Any consistent audible difference (obviously) will show up in FR measurements.

 

It's not clear relative to what reference the speaker may "sound very different." Let's say that comparing it's FR with the FR of a speaker that does not "sound very different" should show a difference.

 

3 hours ago, emcdade said:

 

Why would you hold up a frequency response measurement as the holy grail?  They are typically taken with a single microphone instead of two ears and aren't attached to a human brain that has been attuned with thousands of years of evolution.  

 

1) Frequency response is usually taken at 1 meter.

 

2) very few people listen at that distance. 

 

3) cone material is also responsible for the production of harmonics.  Any vibrating material will have its own resonance. Tap on a paper and a poly cone. They produce their own sound. 

 

4) As Emcdade said, the response is irrelevant when we consider how  the two sound waves are processed by the ears compared to a single measurement of a microphone. A slight movement of the head will dramatically alter the peaks and dips at LP. 

 

5) Flat response at LP is the overall sound and not the Flat response of the driver/ speaker. At LP the Preferred FQ is generally flat. This can be very different compared to what’s measured at 1meter and at LP. 

 

6) I can post charts of many different drivers and I salute anyone who could predict the sound quality of the speakers based on these measurements. 

 

7). Our ears are hardly linear and whatever measurement you get from the measurement changes dramatically inside the ears. Hence, the differing preference of listeners despite what the FR says. 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, STC said:

1) Frequency response is usually taken at 1 meter.

 

2) very few people listen at that distance. 

 

3) cone material is also responsible for the production of harmonics.  Any vibrating material will have its own resonance. Tap on a paper and a poly cone. They produce their own sound. 

 

4) As Emcdade said, the response is irrelevant when we consider how  the two sound waves are processed by the ears compared to a single measurement of a microphone. A slight movement of the head will dramatically alter the peaks and dips at LP. 

 

5) Flat response at LP is the overall sound and not the Flat response of the driver/ speaker. At LP the Preferred FQ is generally flat. This can be very different compared to what’s measured at 1meter and at LP. 

 

6) I can post charts of many different drivers and I salute anyone who could predict the sound quality of the speakers based on these measurements. 

 

7). Our ears are hardly linear and whatever measurement you get from the measurement changes dramatically inside the ears. Hence, the differing preference of listeners despite what the FR says. 

 

1) I'm talking about FR at the listening position.

2) I think quite a few are, but it's irrelevant.

3) Loudspeaker manufacturers avoid such resonances by using proper crossovers (passive or active or DSP).

4) I don't see what that has to do with audible differences being measurable or not.

5) Again, I'm talking about FR at the listening position.

6) My point is that at any listening position any audible difference among speakers will correlate with a measurable FR difference at that LP.

7) You are talking nonsense.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Abtr said:

 

Not sure what you mean by "tonal issues arising from various distortion anomalies." @STC was suggesting that "coloration caused by the cone material" can make a speaker "sound very different" yet this difference wouldn't show up in FR measurements. I simply disagree. Any consistent audible difference (obviously) will show up in FR measurements.

 

It's not clear relative to what reference the speaker may "sound very different." Let's say that comparing it's FR with the FR of a speaker that does not "sound very different" should show a difference.


Just take a trivial, real world area where this is important ... rub and buzz, etc, in loudspeakers are nasty, beautifully non-linear, audible, defects - https://www.klippel.de/nc/en/know-how/measurements/nonlinear-distortion/rub-buzz-and-impulsive-distortion.html. And will drive the listener crazy; conventional FR measuring picks up absolutely none of this.

 

Very unfortunately for all of us, there is a whole suite of those type of issues in the purely electronics side of things - and also heard by all of us: they are precisely those characteristics that make it obvious that the sound coming from behind a curtain, say, are that from a hifi rig - and not live music.

 

However, the positive message is that all of these types of distortion can be reduced to subjectively inaudible levels - and this is what creates the "magic sound" highly optimised setups project, that people run into every now and again ... ^_^.

 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, STC said:

are you ready for

 

Of drivers on their own? that would be non sensical. 

 

Do that from the complete speaker in an anechoic room, not smoothed (like 1/48) and I would give it a go. 

 

6 hours ago, STC said:

1) Frequency response is usually taken at 1 meter.

 

🤢 

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...