Speakers are least important

[STC]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

 

 

🤢

 

When you are done with it tell at what distance they are measured. 

 

 

[PeterSt]

At the shortest distance where the sound fully develops. 

[STC]

And how do the measurements made at “the fully developed” spot is useful to the one who believe that measurements of speakers determine the preferred sound? Are the listeners going to sit at the exact distance and turn his room to an anechoic chamber?  You do not know the variables to have any meaningful interpretation of the speakers measurements. 

 

There was a disputed between Harbeth and Stereophile when the measurements of Stereophile did not agree. Measurements varies as the standard/method is not fixed.

 

 I don’t even want to get why there need a specific distance for the sound to be fully developed or what happens outside the particular spot. Or why the speakers sensitivity is quoted at 1 meter distance if that’s not the spot where the sound is fully developed. 

 

In the end, whatever information you get from reading measurements of the speakers provides no constructive information that will be useful. If I am not mistaken, once Toole said that you get better information information from a tyre specs than the manufacturers speakers measurements.  Not to mention about AES papers on objective and subjective evaluation of loudspeakers to address how to get useful measurements to judge speakers correctly. 

 

I have stated my position and nothing further.

[Abtr]

9 hours ago, fas42 said:

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.

...

 

I disagree and that is not what the article you linked to is saying. If a sound difference is audible then any reasonably precise FR measurement will show it.

[Ralf11]

Are you saying that any distortion has to present as a difference in FR?

 

That is clearly not so.

 

I still maintain that FR is the single most important factorin SQ - and we have a number of experiments showing that, notably from some dude at JBL... you've heard of him

[Abtr]

3 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

Are you saying that any distortion has to present as a difference in FR?

...

No, I'm saying that any audible (tonal) difference between loudspeakers implies a difference in FR. Pretty obvious if you ask me, but @STC doesn't believe it. 

[Ralf11]

an audible difference between loudspeakers can occur w/o a difference in FR

 

any tonal difference between loudspeakers is a difference in FR, by definition 

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, Abtr said:

No, I'm saying that any audible (tonal) difference between loudspeakers implies a difference in FR

 

 This can also be due to cabinet resonances etc.

[Abtr]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

an audible difference between loudspeakers can occur w/o a difference in FR

 

any tonal difference between loudspeakers is a difference in FR, by definition 

The initial discussion was about "coloration caused by the cone material." I suppose that would be a tonal, or frequency related phenomenon. There may be amplitude and/or phase related differences between speakers that are not correlated with FR but I can't think of any that would make a speaker "sound very different."

[Abtr]

27 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 This can also be due to cabinet resonances etc.

Are you saying that cabinet resonances don't show up in FR measurements?

[sandyk]

13 minutes ago, Abtr said:

Are you saying that cabinet resonances don't show up in FR measurements?

 

 No. I am simply making the point that differences in tonal quality between speaker drivers with identical frequency response can be due to cabinet resonances.

 You were reading far too much into my reply. Of course there may be minor differences in the Waterfall plot that most people are unlikely to be able to correctly interpret anyway..

 

 P.S.

 We are now getting way off the original topic which is Speakers are Least Important which is completely wrong anyway.

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfall_plot

[fas42]

We are having disagreements about terms to use with regard to the perceived qualities in the sound. To set some sort of reference points, here are 'definitions' from the Holt glossary:

 

coloration An audible "signature" with which a reproducing system imbues all signals passing through it.
 

tonal quality The accuracy (correctness) with which reproduced sound replicates the timbres of the original instruments.

 

In both cases we are talking about variation in the composition of the frequencies reaching our ears; which only vaguely relates to what one would see in conventional FR measurements - the myriad of distortion generating mechanisms in all audio systems guarantees that. Again, these days it is relatively trivial to adjust the output of two completely systems so that the normal FR curves match to any level of precision, at some listening position - will that ensure they sound identical? ... I wonder how many out there actually believe this? .

 

The only true reference is what's on the recording. And that which come closest to perfectly replicating that is the winner - all else is merely applying makeup of various qualities.

[Rexp]

Yes back OT, the number one job of a high-end system is to deliver the emotion in the music, something that mid-fi can't do. Now if you spend more you can get great imaging, tonal balance etc. So say you audiion a SOTA system and it does it all but you can't afford it, you can substitute lower cost speakers into that system and it will still deliver the emotion. 

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, Rexp said:

So say you audiion a SOTA system and it does it all but you can't afford it, you can substitute lower cost speakers into that system and it will still deliver the emotion. 

That doesn't mean the speakers are least important though.

 With my original DCM QED 1A speakers I first saw a review of them in Australian Hi Fi where they also showed technical measurements including a Waterfall plot, which showed that they were quite a bit better than average for speakers back then.

 After that I then went to a local dealer along with another technical friend, where they were properly set up, and after hearing them bought them.

[PeterSt]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

will that ensure they sound identical? ... I wonder how many out there actually believe this? .

 

Nice try, because 

 

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

Again, these days it is relatively trivial to adjust the output of two completely systems so that the normal FR curves match to any level of precision, at some listening position

 

that is incorrect; Keep in mind that your "complete system" includes the speakers. Let me also once again say that no smoothing is allowed (because the differences will be smoothed out and everything kind of easily looks the same).

I don't think you ever applied these measurements, or else you wouldn't have made this strange claim ...

[fas42]

4 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Nice try, because 

 

 

that is incorrect; Keep in mind that your "complete system" includes the speakers. Let me also once again say that no smoothing is allowed (because the differences will be smoothed out and everything kind of easily looks the same).

I don't think you ever applied these measurements, or else you wouldn't have made this strange claim ...

 

OK, I said the normal FR curves - it's scary to see what a mess the FR is if one much more precisely measures what the levels are at finely grained differences of frequency; by such measures it's impossible to get anything close to being flat ...

 

Yes, the answer is that our hearing sorts all this out, and compensates as necessary - otherwise, it would be a nightmare listening to everyday, natural sounds - the slightest movement of our heads would "change everything"; we need internal "smoothing" to stop us going nuts.

 

My experiences with FR are easy to state - the closer the rig is to optimum SQ, the less playing with FR matters ... subjectively; conversely, a lousy car radio dramatically changes in how it comes across, with the tiniest twitching of the bass and treble settings - at the other extreme. ... Another marker for when one reaches competent sound.

[PeterSt]

Just now, fas42 said:

by such measures it's impossible to get anything close to being flat ...

 

Aha ...

[sandyk]

Hi Peter

 You really need to update your links in your posts, as well as your email contact details.

 

Regards

Alex

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

the closer the rig is to optimum SQ, the less playing with FR matters ... subjectively; conversely

 

I don't agree, again. The better the system "is" as a whole, the more frequency response curves are directly audible.

 

 

That is from our Orelo MKII speaker.

 

 

The vertical scale is 5dB increments. So at the top end each setting differs 2.5dB from the other.

The orange in the graph obviously is supposed to be the flat response (the colors in the graph do not correspond to the led colors on the panel). Now change that to green or red and the difference is totally obvious (like enormously more spacious on the red one). But after an hour you may be fed up with it, because it gives a character to the sound which is not neutral.

 

 

 

 

I hardly ever try the other two switches (last to pictures).

 

 

The vertical scale of that  is obvious (and smoothing at 1/12, sorry 😉 ), rated at +/- 0.5dB. (mind the common rating of +/- 3dB which makes no sense at all to me - read on). Now, if I change the level of that woofer section with 0.5dB (without influencing the cross over which is out of view, more to the right) then or the sound is too lean, or there's way too much of deep down earth bass (which btw is not colouring).

 

How is that possible ? I mean, how is it possible that I nag so much about a total change of 1dB while nobody really complains (you neither) about a peak to peak (ripple) change along the lines of a whopping 6dB ??

Answer: because that 6dB ripple is a mess to begin with, plus it will heavily distort at the levels you play. Not that you will recognize that, but it is so - we discussed this before (e.g. organ plays at 32Hz but you will hear 64Hz through it at some fair volume level and you won't even recognize it as distortion unless you know the organ from real life (the organ could play the overtone for real)).

 

Summarized, because all is set up as good as possible for technically undistorted playback (the preceding chain just as well), you hear every minute change to the Frequency Response as a do or die.

 

PS: Remember where this thread sprung from ? ... from the poll of what's most and least important in the chain. I left out the speaker at all and said it should be counted out. I hope you now can see why. It is totally crucial but so enormously diverging to any direction in any realm possible, that we can't make common sense out of it. There is no single reference to us all and measurements are quite impossible (says me).

 

Possibly the moral should be: the better all is for technical quality, the more the smallest changes become vastly audible. The other moral could be that I don't work with your (Frank's) mind (thing). Just measurement up to capability and reason beyond that.

 

[PeterSt]

OffTopic Alert

 

50 minutes ago, sandyk said:

You really need to update your links in your posts, as well as your email contact details.

 

Alex, thank you. I am just back from vacation and that some things are out of order was pointed out to me on the way back home, yesterday. I just saw myself what you showed there.

 

I am not sure how this relates to said "email contact details" (I am receiving your regular spam 😉 ) but I just notices that I don't receive emails from webshop orders any more as well.

That page is from the DNS provider, as if I didn't pay for something. But I did ...

 

Regards,

Peter

 

PS: And to inform you, that page is somehow personalized.

I really wondered where this came from, knowing that far away from where I am now, I have been looking for Vietnamese restaurants on a phone, while I now see this on a desktop. It couldn't be coincidence. And I now know it 100% for sure is not ...

hahaha (you say oops)

[sandyk]

49 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

I am not sure how this relates to said "email contact details" (I am receiving your regular spam 😉

 Not today.

 That's how I found out  You may be missing out on sales now too.

 If they are personalised searches, then you are going to be in BIG trouble if SWMBO saw the top left one in my post !!! 

[STC]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

audible.

 

 

So you believe that correcting the FR so that the curve is somewhat closer to Fletcher Munson curve?  

 

 

[PeterSt]

35 minutes ago, STC said:

So you believe that correcting the FR so that the curve is somewhat closer to Fletcher Munson curve?

 

No. That could have been so, though. Only flat works out best for me. I don't know about others (other customers).

[PeterSt]

41 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 If they are personalised searches, then you are going to be in BIG trouble if SWMBO saw the top left one in my post !!! 

 

Dear Alex - you missed the gag, and by now the opportunity to edit that post. What you showed is YOUR personalized page. What I showed is my own. My SWAMBO is fine. 😉

 

Btw, nothing wrong with searching for Waterfalls nearby, is there ?

haha

 

PS: I found out that the DNS provider simply "removed" domain names with the big fun that I don't even know which they are (but I will find out sooner or later). But at least www.phasure.com.

Nice, this cloud stuff. It gets better and better.

 

[sandyk]

7 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Dear Alex - you missed the gag, and by now the opportunity to edit that post

 Peter

 We both know that I would be highly unlikely at my age to look for that,  or those kinds of restaurants

It's hard enough for me to even afford the occasional Mcdonalds these days .

Alex