• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Speakers It's a Matter Of Choice

ken kantor said:
The cool thing about speakers is that you don't need to know the really arcane stuff in order to enjoy them, or even build your own.

-k

www.kenkantor.com
www.ztamplifiers.com
Click to expand...

Good point Ken!

I find the quest for "perfection" in sound reproduction interesting. Especially, when there exists no standards for sound mixing and eventual recording. All of us are subject to the decisions made by sound recording engineers (unless, of course we record live music ourselves).

As a result there are wide variations in the recordings themselves and several folks in this tread have mentioned how they find some speakers do a better job than others on ... a specific recording or type of music.

So given all of this variability, how should we deal with it?

Some folks argue in favor of signal processing via EQ's as the answer. I can appreciate that as long as the drivers are capable of producing clean, distortion free sound. Voicing then becomes a minor issue as the expectation is the listener will override anyhow to suite their tastes.

I've messed with EQ's and don't find them particularily satisfying and ... I don't really know why.

Since voicing in most multi-driver systems is accomplished via the xover networks, I just prefer bi-amping as a way to control "voicing". That is, I use volume controls to apply power independently to each half of a speaker. This allows me to dynamically control voicing and in most cases to adjust the recording to suite my needs.

Purists argue that this defeats the artist's intent. My counter is, "NO, this defeats some recording engineer's intent and so what? My interest is to be able to hear clearly what each musician is doing."

So, Ken, for speaker designers like you, my challenge is to make speaker systems capable of very low distortion, wide dispersion and full range. Voicing, which most folks judge speakers by, is of a lesser importance to me.

Now, on the issue of "full range", I believe the challenge today is still the bass. I say this because there are a wide variety of good mids and tweeters available.

A good test of any system's bass is how well you can hear the nuances of Esperanza Spalding's very creative bass lines.

attachment.php


Regards,
Jerry
 

Attachments

  • Esperanza.jpg
    Esperanza.jpg
    55 KB · Views: 130
onplane said:
wide dispersion
Click to expand...

Curious why do you put that one in.

I find that a lot of people say they want wide dispersion but then they treat the side walls of the listening room such that all the energy projected to the outside is eaten up to improve imaging. Using a wide dispersion speaker, up to and including omnipolar radiation, will tend to make your soundstage huge. That's what made Bose famous in the first place. You could stand anywhere in the room and get a good (subjective, of course) stereo sound.

But if you want pinpoint imaging and to hear the nuances of the space where a recording was made then controlled dispersion is the ticket. It takes your room out of the equation to a great extent. The sweet spot gets small but the imaging can be amazing. Horns are a way to get there. Large panels that throw a plane wave (or close approximation) do a good job too. And of course there's nearfield listening.

Ray
 
HypnoToad said:
"Pro reviews suck, generally, and we all know it. Lay reviews belong in the "Humor" section."

Who is "we"?
Click to expand...

Anyone with a lick of sense when it comes to this stuff!:thmbsp: After you've been at it for 3 to 4 decades, this rings truer than anything I've read in a long time. I could care less what people listen to, thinks is "good" etc, enjoy what they want, but when one of "them" starts grandstanding, I start cracking up. Obviously, pro reviews are merely extensions of the advertising departments of the supplier. This is well known. Hopefully this helps clear these things up a little.



Russellc
 
jnoyes4 said:
If you actually bothered to read the article by Toole that Zilch recommends I think you will see his points more clearly. I was skeptical at first, but the points in the article are well made and logical. I don't neccessarily agree with all of it, but much of it I do. It's quite a long read, but worth the effort. You just might learn something.

Jon
Click to expand...

Agreed. Dont worry, they'll come around...if they think long enough it will come to them.:yes: Well, maybe!:D

Russellc
 
RichPA said:
It seems to me that if your system makes you happy, it makes you happy - it is serving you as a good tool should, accomplishing its task of connecting you to the music. It seems to me that this is the real meaning of "trust your ears" - you may be able to demonstrate to me that I'd prefer something that measures better (and I generally do prefer speakers that measure better), but just asserting I'm wrong carries no weight with me at all. Most important of all, I have never heard even a "measurements only" person claim that there are speakers without tradeoffs - nor deny that different people may value different aspects of performance differently. And that's not subject to engineering measurement, only - perhaps, and certainly imperfectly - to psychological measurement, which is rarely done in this domain.
Click to expand...

This is true enough, just as true as the saying "ignorance is bliss" if you know what I mean. Nothing wrong with enjoying what you have, just dont blather on about how its the best thing since sliced bread. I built Zilch's econowaves and love them. they measure well....I also enjoy the Altec A7, which while many do, has its measurement problems which stick out sonically like a sore thumb. I still love them, but I know what they are, and more importantly are not.

Russellc
 
RayW said:
Curious why do you put that one in.


Ray
Click to expand...

Good question, Ray!!

Naturally, I'm referring to wide dispersion on the tweeters as the lower freqencies tend to radiate more evenly in all directions.

Problem with narrow dispersion is speaker placement becomes critical. Many of us have significant others with higher pay grades, who determine where the "ugly boxes" can be placed.

Just trying to be practical, Ray. Nothing more than that.

Regards,
Jerry
 
Gotcha, so you're really looking for uniform dispersion over the operating range of the speaker more than just a generally wide dispersion. But since the bass is very wide dispersion (omnidirectional) then the rest of the speaker must be to match.

Matching dispersion at crossovers can be quite a challenge. A good point to put into your ultimate speaker wish list.

Ray
 
Spray the room with omni-directional SPL, and you get a huge soundstage, but it is artificial. You're listening to the room, NOT the music. The imaging is vague and diffuse; it's a festival of phase interference.

Controlled dispersion is a more rational approach, limiting reflections so as to generate a bit of ambience, but, most importantly, with constant power response, i.e., the reflected energy must be constant across the frequency spectrum. Constant directivity is key to accomplishing this.

Once you have directivity control, there are ways to generate very wide or narrow sweet spots, as desired. See Toole and Geddes.... :yes:
 
ken kantor said:
Interesting, and I can see its applications. Take a look at the Audyssey and the Trinnov stuff; they have deployed products which, in a very general way, are conceptually related.

No doubt, your system can yield improvements under many conditions particularly, I think, in the case of a listener who is comfortable with an adaptive music reproduction system.

The more subtle issue is that there are fundamental limitations that prevent any discrete set of n-channels from fully pre-transforming an acoustical space, no matter what kind of signal processing is applied. The inverse function just does not exist in "voltage space." In the opinions of some experts, human factors... cognitive and biophysical ...give us a fighting chance at perceptually accurate sound reproduction in a room even in the face of these mathematical limitations. Others are of the exact opposite opinion.

In any event, it isn't possible to fully mimic one type of speaker with another, with signal pre-processing.... EQ, "time domain," etc. Attempts to get a similar IR from speakers with a different radiation pattern will fail, and very predictably. (Many of us learned this the hard way in the 70's and 80's!)

Sorry for digressing, I never miss a chance to get on my soapbox about the futility of a transform-based view of acoustics!

-k
Click to expand...

Thanks for your comments Ken, those are interesting references but I agree only generally related.

I'm not sure if it was clear but the system is designed to have an automatically indexed unique correction EQ for every different CD, SACD, DVD, etc. played through the system.

The primary idea is not to correct for the speakers, but rather correct for the source to obtain the best balance within the limitations of the speakers being used. Ideally, a virtual higher quality version of the recording, a restoration in a sense.

I certainly understand that the speaker in room situation is a multi-dimensional problem, and I don't really want to debate you. However, even farther back than the 70-80s, probably when people were trying to determine ranking of the importance of on axis, and perhaps power response a test was done with EQ on several speakers. I believe that I read it in an AES paper. Ruling out grossly different speakers, such as horns, dipoles, etc., it was found that if the on axis, or perhaps a balance of on-axis and reverberant response were matched between speakers having reasonably low distortion the conclusion was that they sounded the same.

I also recently heard a demo of the CONEQ system which makes roughly the same claim: http://www.realsoundlab.com/eng/technology/

Amusing that they claim that convolutional filtering is new and revolutionary when it was used in the 1970s to restore the Caruso recordings, LOL!

I'm aware of your unique designs Ken, the MGC and the NHT-3.3 but this was with regard to common basic front firing box speakers. Perhaps I'm not following your claim, or perhaps you're looking for a nearly perfect match?
 
This is an excellent paper if people are really interested in this subject:
The Great Debate: Subjective Evaluation by Lipshitz, Stanley P.; Vanderkooy, John
Paper Number: 1563 AES Convention: 65 (February 1980)
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=3799

What is interesting is that right in the abstract the authors make a distinction "In order for subjective tests to be meaningful to others..."
To others is the interesting point ...
They do actually show that subjective tests can be meaningful to others, however it is really very simple for an individual, if you like it, then it is good; they did not state this, rather it is an obvious conclusion.

Also: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=5425

Further, this is the internet some may use it for casual conversation and others for let's say preaching/grandstanding, LOL! As casual conversation I may take note of what one poster says and if I find that their observations are in line with mine then I might look into equipment that they recommend at a later date. Seems odd that I have to point this out, most learn in life that we have to weed out the good from the bad sources of information.
 
Pete B said:
Interesting Lecture:
Linkwitz AES "Accurate sound reproduction" Parts 1-9

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=VC-sxvNzC8I
Click to expand...
Thank you for the link, Pete! I was able to get through all of it today. :thmbsp:

During the Q&A, one listener observed that the point of Linkwitz's fundamental emphasis, uniform power response, has been well known and well understood for nearly 30 years.

Siegfried's response: "It hasn't gotten through...."

Here's the page counters for the lecture when I viewed it:

1) 1321, 2) 458, 3) 320, 4) 326, 5) 187, 6) 151, 7) 140, 8) 130, 9) 141

2/3 of viewers quit after page 1, and by the time it gets to Q&A, another 2/3 were gone.

Either:

A) This is too hard; nobody gets it, or,

B) Nobody wants to hear it; what Tommy Lee Jones said.... :dunno:
 
Pete B said:
Further, this is the internet some may use it for casual conversation and others for let's say preaching/grandstanding, LOL!
Click to expand...

Some may call it evangelizing. The evangelist sees others only as potential converts, who have yet to see the blinding light of his own and only truth, and will not rest until he has imposed that truth on others.
 
Pete B said:
What is interesting is that right in the abstract the authors make a distinction "In order for subjective tests to be meaningful to others..."
To others is the interesting point ...
They do actually show that subjective tests can be meaningful to others, however it is really very simple for an individual, if you like it, then it is good; they did not state this, rather it is an obvious conclusion.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah, good to the individual, for the moment, and all but meaningless to anyone else:

"In order for subjective tests to be meaningful to others: (a) there must be technical competence to prevent obvious and/or subtle effects from affecting the test, (b) linear differences must be thoroughly excised before conclusions about nonlinear errors can be reached, (c) the subjective judgment required in the test must be simple, such as the ability to discriminate between two components, using an absolute reference wherever possible, and (d) the test must be blind or preferably double blind."

"We believe that the burden of proof must lie with those who make new hypotheses regarding subjective tests. This alone would wipe out most criticisms of the controlled tests reported in the literature. Speculation is changed to fact only by careful experimentation."

wank said:
Some may call it evangelizing. The evangelist sees others only as potential converts, who have yet to see the blinding light of his own and only truth, and will not rest until he has imposed that truth on others.
Click to expand...
Y'all'd prefer if wank were to prevail, quite obviously.... :p:
 
Why is there always such polarization between subjective and objective evaluations on speakers?? It seems that a mixture of both is what is required. Both views have there own pit falls that can only be resolved using the other method. Here's an example

You have a speaker that measures great and sounds like crap.

You have a speaker that measures poorly but sounds good.

You have a speaker that measures great and sounds great.

You have a speaker that measures poorly and sounds like crap.

All 4 off these situations are quite common. To resolve these issues you need a healthy dose of both forms of evaluation.

If a persons opinion on how a speaker sounds has absolutely no merit why are we all wasting our time talking about speakers??? I have friends who's opinion I value and when we discuss how speakers sound we are on the same page. Don't any of you also share that experience with others??

Rob:)
 
Hi, Rob!

Robh3606 said:
If a persons opinion on how a speaker sounds has absolutely no merit why are we all wasting our time talking about speakers??? I have friends who's opinion I value and when we discuss how speakers sound we are on the same page. Don't any of you also share that experience with others??
Click to expand...

Yes, of course, but we've got a bigger dilemma here in cyberspace:

Member A: "I LOVE my HPM-100s. They're the WORLD's BEST loudspeaker!"

Member B: "HPM-100s SUCK so bad I can't even listen to them, and I can't get rid of them fast enough!"

Answer: They're not talking about the speakers, nope.

The FACTS are elsewhere.

Let's talk more about the facts.... :yes:

HypnoToad said:
There seems way more to speaker design than meets the eye or the ear for that matter. Things that I know nothing about.
Click to expand...

Yes. Again, you are the final arbiter of what you like, and nobody says that's wrong.

You now know you like Advents better than Insignias.

The next level of inquiry is, "What's up with THAT?" :dunno:
 
Robh3606 said:
Why is there always such polarization between subjective and objective evaluations on speakers?? It seems that a mixture of both is what is required. Both views have there own pit falls that can only be resolved using the other method. Here's an example

You have a speaker that measures great and sounds like crap.

You have a speaker that measures poorly but sounds good.

You have a speaker that measures great and sounds great.

You have a speaker that measures poorly and sounds like crap.

All 4 off these situations are quite common. To resolve these issues you need a healthy dose of both forms of evaluation.

If a persons opinion on how a speaker sounds has absolutely no merit why are we all wasting our time talking about speakers??? I have friends who's opinion I value and when we discuss how speakers sound we are on the same page. Don't any of you also share that experience with others??

Rob:)
Click to expand...
You are exactly right.
The problem comes in when a person _subjectively_ loves the way their speakers sound, and another person informs that "it isn't possible to enjoy that speaker, as it doesn't measure correctly." The implication always ends up being that the subjective appreciation is somehow informed by an inadequacy on the listener's part.
Listen (pun intended) - if objective measurements were the only way to evaluate, then tube electronics (and much solid state, for that matter) would be implicitly rejected for having higher distortion measurements (see also CDs vs. vinyl). That just doesn't reflect the reality of how audio equipment sounds or is listened to.

What this argument seems to come down to is two camps arguing:
a. Measurements are the only valid method of speaker evaluation, and in the end, the only valid preference is for the speaker that measures better.
vs.
b. Subjective evaluation and measurements are both valid elements of speaker evaluation, and in the end personal preference for a sound contour will determine a person's preference, and that preference is valid.

The fact is that measurements are one element of evaluation, as is the subjective evaluation of what one likes to hear when applied to his or her individual experience. If you don't like the sound of speakers that measure perfectly, then why the hell would you buy them?

Winning an argument on the internet has about as much value as, well, something valueless. I have no illusion that anything I or anyone else says will end this argument, as the disagreement has become one of quasi-religion, and frankly some people just like to push buttons because they're attention starved. Internet experts are a 12/$.10, and compare unfavorably to those who have accomplished something professionally and commercially in their field (thank you for your input, Mr. Kantor).
Fortunately, AK provides an "ignore list", which has made this forum significantly more enjoyable to me. Like my speakers, which I subjectively enjoy and apparently measure well.
 
Yes, of course, but we've got a bigger dilemma here in cyberspace:

Member A: "I LOVE my HPM-100s. They're the WORLD's BEST loudspeaker!"

Member B: "HPM-100s SUCK so bad I can't even listen to them, and I can't get rid of them fast enough!"

Answer: They're not talking about the speakers, nope.

The FACTS are elsewhere....
Click to expand...

Hello Zilch

OK but what do you consider as the facts?? I agree that the Internet is a challenged medium for discussing this stuff. Ideally we should all be able to drop into each others living rooms. To me that's the only way to see if you both are talking about the same things. Even then the language for describing what we hear is arbitrary and not exact.

You have one guy who likes them. That's a fact

You have one guy who doesn't. That's a fact

I can measure them using a single point and shoot method. That's a fact

I can do a full polar spread and average the curves over the listening window. That's a fact

So we have two different Subjective points of view.

We have two different Objective points of view.

In both cases there are differences that don't agree but are factual in there specific context.

Which fact's are correct??

Seems to me there are elements of truth in all 4 facts. The real truth of the matter is not black and white. The only way to move forward is to resolve issues and conflicts between the fact's is through open minded discussion.

Speaker evaluation has always been an issue and most likely will stay that way. It's hard enough doing it in real time. Over the Internet???

Just seems like it will always be an unresolved issue that we could all just spend hours discussing. Why not just open the door and ask the guy who hates them Why?? Or the guy who loves them Why?? At least that way it's not confrontational to get the discussion going and it may end up being a productive one at that.

As far as measurements they are "facts" but they are directly related to how the measurements were done. The first example is a simple on axis that is accurate for that distance and room and microphone position. The second is also accurate but will probably get you closer to how it will sound if you can understand what's in the plot. But both have there short comings.

There is just no easy answer to this.

Rob:)
 
wank said:
Winning an argument on the internet has about as much value as, well, something valueless. I have no illusion that anything I or anyone else says will end this argument, as the disagreement has become one of quasi-religion, and frankly some people just like to push buttons because they're attention starved.
Click to expand...
I am running counterpoint to the prevailing subjectivist dogma here.

Do I overstate my case? Yes, of course; signal to noise, from my viewpoint, and it's been so since my first post in Rick's stacked 4311B thread.

Ask yourself if some members haven't benefited from the alternative perspective I have relentlessly advocated here.... :yes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom