Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hi everyone,
Why is it that a room with slightly higher response level below 80hz sounds more engaging than an average flat frequency response room. When I say flat it doesn't mean ruler flat but overall 5 db difference across the spectrum except for 5 or 6 peaks more than 12db peak. Your opinion, please. Regards, ST |
#2
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"ST" wrote in message
Why is it that a room with slightly higher response level below 80hz sounds more engaging than an average flat frequency response room. My first question would be: "How do you know that is generally true"? |
#3
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 6, 11:42*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"ST" wrote in message Why is it that a room with slightly higher response level below 80hz sounds more engaging than an average flat frequency response room. My first question would be: "How do you know that is generally true"? Because after repositioning the loudspeakers and adjusting the room treatment. It gave slight boost at frequencies below 100hz by 5db to 8db which sounded better to five different type of persons. It is maybe possible that the highs are affected too because of the removal of room treatment. But the bass with little bit of extra punch is pleasing than before. I measured in two other listening rooms using Denon test CD and SPL and generally found that being the case. Regards, ST |
#4
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... "ST" wrote in message Why is it that a room with slightly higher response level below 80hz sounds more engaging than an average flat frequency response room. My first question would be: "How do you know that is generally true"? The MacIntosh "room curve" may have been the earliest awareness of this principle. The Mac technicians were trained to EQ their systems' rooms not to flat, but to a room curve that emphasized the low end and tapered off the highs. It is now a well-recognized and respected principle - as far as my reading tells me. The technical reason for this is that the field-type system of auditory perspective depends partly on the playback room to assist the speakers and recording in the illusion of placing a performance in front of you. In the concert hall, there is this same natural fall-off of the high frequencies and buildup or reinforcement of low frequencies by the surfaces in the hall itself. Because the recordings are made with the mikes placed relatively close to the orchestra, and the desired perspective is of them performing at a distance in front of you, not on top of you, and because the room is usually too small to do this all by itself, it is desirable to help the process along by EQing to this room curve. It is easier to visualize why this surprising aspect of the system works by looking at the reproduction as a model of the real thing, with the sound field "shaped" to mimic the larger space in both perspective, direct to reflected ratios, and frequency response curves. Gary Eickmeier |
#5
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 7, 7:32*am, ST wrote:
My first question would be: "How do you know that is generally true"? Because after repositioning the loudspeakers and *adjusting the room treatment. It gave slight boost at frequencies below 100hz by 5db to 8db which sounded better to five different type of persons. So how do you know it was flat in the first place? Unless you've measured and know it's flat to start with, you don't. If so you have no basis for your generalization. Also, what are you after? If you want accuracy, accuracy doesn't necessarily sound "good". Accuracy means telling the truth, and the truth is often unpleasant. Lots of extremely expensive speakers are engineered not to be flat, because they will then sound good extremely on some subset of recordings. Or they sound exciting in the typical show room and so sell better. Of course they will then sound even worse than flat speakers on some other subset of recordings. In any event many if not most rooms are not "flat" with any speaker. |
#6
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote in message
... On Apr 7, 7:32 am, ST wrote: My first question would be: "How do you know that is generally true"? Because after repositioning the loudspeakers and adjusting the room treatment. It gave slight boost at frequencies below 100hz by 5db to 8db which sounded better to five different type of persons. So how do you know it was flat in the first place? Unless you've measured and know it's flat to start with, you don't. If so you have no basis for your generalization. Exactly. Also, what are you after? If you want accuracy, accuracy doesn't necessarily sound "good". Accuracy means telling the truth, and the truth is often unpleasant. I'm under the impression that as long as boomy, thuddy bass is avoided, there may be an effect along the lines of "More, deeper bass is better". Lots of extremely expensive speakers are engineered not to be flat, because they will then sound good extremely on some subset of recordings. Or they sound exciting in the typical show room and so sell better. Of course they will then sound even worse than flat speakers on some other subset of recordings. In any event many if not most rooms are not "flat" with any speaker. Right. For example small rooms have a built-in bass boost that starts at a frequency that goes lower as the room gets larger. |
#7
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
What is really desirable is flat frequency response AT THE LISTENING
POSITION - the "sweet spot." The speakers need not be perfectly flat but should be reasonably so over the full audio spectrum. High end speakers plus a good subwoofer is usually needed to achieve this. Room acoustics are usually very unflat due to resonances and reflections, but this can be improved by proper acoustic conditioning and speaker placement. Then the serious audiophile uses, or hires a tech to install and set up, a GRAPHIC EQUALIZER - at least 10 band, preferably more - to minimize the nonlinearities in the frequency response at the primary listening position. I use a DOD 231Q 31- band dual (2 channel) graphic EQ. The settings for both channels are the same as the speakers are matched and symmetrically located. Truly flat response input to ear, even if only within +/- a few db over the entire audio spectrum, will absolutely amaze you! |
#8
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 7, 1:28*pm, wrote:
Lots of extremely expensive speakers are engineered not to be flat, because they will then sound good extremely on some subset of recordings. *Or they sound exciting in the typical show room and so sell better. Or they were "designed" in the absence of reliable measurement and test methods and engineering expertise, regrettably. |
#9
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Howard Davis" wrote in message
... What is really desirable is flat frequency response AT THE LISTENING POSITION - the "sweet spot." This is exactly opposite of the truth. Speakers that are flat to a measuring microphone in an anechoic chamber will have a natural, desirable fall-off of the high frequencies in a good sized room, as will live instruments. This is provided they have a very wide, even radiation pattern, preferably dipole or omni, and are placed a few feet from all walls. Then the serious audiophile uses, or hires a tech to install and set up, a GRAPHIC EQUALIZER - at least 10 band, preferably more - to minimize the nonlinearities in the frequency response at the primary listening position. I use a DOD 231Q 31- band dual (2 channel) graphic EQ. The settings for both channels are the same as the speakers are matched and symmetrically located. You've got to be careful here. "Flat" at one point in the room could be greatly mistaken. What is desirable is a power response that takes on a room curve with slightly tapering high frequencies. You measure this by moving the microphone over an area, not just in one spot, and averaging. Truly flat response input to ear, even if only within +/- a few db over the entire audio spectrum, will absolutely amaze you! And blister your ears off. Gary Eickmeier |
#10
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"ST" wrote in message
... On Apr 6, 11:42 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "ST" wrote in message Why is it that a room with slightly higher response level below 80hz sounds more engaging than an average flat frequency response room. My first question would be: "How do you know that is generally true"? Because after repositioning the loudspeakers and adjusting the room treatment. It gave slight boost at frequencies below 100hz by 5db to 8db which sounded better to five different type of persons. It is maybe possible that the highs are affected too because of the removal of room treatment. But the bass with little bit of extra punch is pleasing than before. I measured in two other listening rooms using Denon test CD and SPL and generally found that being the case. Regards, ST Seems to me that the premise of " sounds more engaging" will, in a large part be determined by the type of sound that the people doing the listening have become conditioned to. I think the subjective response of people who are used to listening to flatter ( more accurate) reproduction would be different than that of people conditioned by the type of sound reproduction that they usually hear. Back in the late 60's and early 70's when newer speaker designs extended the high frequency response of speakers people that had listened to the likes of Advents and AR speakers claimed that the newer designs were "too bright". In reality they were hearing a larger frequency response than they had heard in the past. After some time hearing all the detail missing with their older equipment, when they relistened to material on their older designed speakers they now could tell what they had been missing. Low bass response has progressed significantly over the years in the same fashion. |
#11
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 8, 7:35*am, "Gary Eickmeier" wrote:
"Howard Davis" wrote in message ... What is really desirable is flat frequency response AT THE LISTENING POSITION - the "sweet spot." This is exactly opposite of the truth. Speakers that are flat to a measuring microphone in an anechoic chamber will have a natural, desirable fall-off of the high frequencies in a good sized room, as will live instruments. This is provided they have a very wide, even radiation pattern, preferably dipole or omni, and are placed a few feet from all walls. Put dipoles or omnis close to the walls and you get a real mess. The listening room and the concert hall simply do not work on the same principles. In fact they are pretty close to opposite. Concert hall reverb is an important component in live acoustic music. It is just a distortion in the listening room. |
#12
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 07:43:48 -0700, ST wrote
(in article ): Hi everyone, Why is it that a room with slightly higher response level below 80hz sounds more engaging than an average flat frequency response room. When I say flat it doesn't mean ruler flat but overall 5 db difference across the spectrum except for 5 or 6 peaks more than 12db peak. Your opinion, please. Regards, ST Simply put: You are, ostensibly, trying to reproduce a performance that already exists, not create a new one. Anything that adds or subtracts anything from the original performance is veering away from that goal. It's OK, if that' what you want, but it's not "high-fidelity". |
#13
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... Simply put: You are, ostensibly, trying to reproduce a performance that already exists, not create a new one. Anything that adds or subtracts anything from the original performance is veering away from that goal. It's OK, if that' what you want, but it's not "high-fidelity". It sure seems like that would be the case, but it's not. Think about a mult-miked pop or even most classical and jazz recordings that are very close-miked and then mixed down to a master recording according to the judgement and taste of the engineer. Some recordings are even made with all instruments isolated from each other so that the engineer has max control over the mix with minimal bleed-thru. There is no "original event" as such, witnessed from the best seat in the house by the perfect microphone - unless you are a gigantic man from Mars with 37 ears or live under the lid of a piano or hovering over the drum kit. Gary Eickmeier |
#14
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 07:25:55 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... Simply put: You are, ostensibly, trying to reproduce a performance that already exists, not create a new one. Anything that adds or subtracts anything from the original performance is veering away from that goal. It's OK, if that' what you want, but it's not "high-fidelity". It sure seems like that would be the case, but it's not. Think about a mult-miked pop or even most classical and jazz recordings that are very close-miked and then mixed down to a master recording according to the judgement and taste of the engineer. Some recordings are even made with all instruments isolated from each other so that the engineer has max control over the mix with minimal bleed-thru. There is no "original event" as such, witnessed from the best seat in the house by the perfect microphone - unless you are a gigantic man from Mars with 37 ears or live under the lid of a piano or hovering over the drum kit. Gary Eickmeier That's a separate issue. Whatever the source, however ineptly or wrong-headed is the original recording, we, as listeners, are still, basically, trying to reproduce it. The goal is to accurately reproduce the soundfield captured by that recording and to present it, in our listening environment, as little changed from the original as possible. That makes flat frequency response, measured at your listening position very important. Luckily, the human ear has a lot of latitude in this respect and will accept less than perfect frequency response and still regard the result as high-fidelity. |
#15
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
... "Howard Davis" wrote in message ... What is really desirable is flat frequency response AT THE LISTENING POSITION - the "sweet spot." This is exactly opposite of the truth. Speakers that are flat to a measuring microphone in an anechoic chamber will have a natural, desirable fall-off of the high frequencies in a good sized room, as will live instruments. This is provided they have a very wide, even radiation pattern, preferably dipole or omni, and are placed a few feet from all walls. It is not the opposite of the truth. The point at which your ears are located are all that counts; it would be impossible to equalize for flat response over a large part of, no less an entire room. If a rolloff of the highs sounds more natural to you, turning down the treble control a bit will give you that. Then the serious audiophile uses, or hires a tech to install and set up, a GRAPHIC EQUALIZER - at least 10 band, preferably more - to minimize the nonlinearities in the frequency response at the primary listening position. I use a DOD 231Q 31- band dual (2 channel) graphic EQ. The settings for both channels are the same as the speakers are matched and symmetrically located. You've got to be careful here. "Flat" at one point in the room could be greatly mistaken. What is desirable is a power response that takes on a room curve with slightly tapering high frequencies. You measure this by moving the microphone over an area, not just in one spot, and averaging. Setting equalization for flatter response over a larger area, based on the averaging of measurements, certainly can be done, but this compromises the flatness at a smaller "sweet spot." Truly flat response input to ear, even if only within +/- a few db over the entire audio spectrum, will absolutely amaze you! And blister your ears off. I fail to see how. Gary Eickmeier |
#16
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 07:25:55 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... Simply put: You are, ostensibly, trying to reproduce a performance that already exists, not create a new one. Anything that adds or subtracts anything from the original performance is veering away from that goal. It's OK, if that' what you want, but it's not "high-fidelity". It sure seems like that would be the case, but it's not. Think about a mult-miked pop or even most classical and jazz recordings that are very close-miked and then mixed down to a master recording according to the judgement and taste of the engineer. Some recordings are even made with all instruments isolated from each other so that the engineer has max control over the mix with minimal bleed-thru. There is no "original event" as such, witnessed from the best seat in the house by the perfect microphone - unless you are a gigantic man from Mars with 37 ears or live under the lid of a piano or hovering over the drum kit. Gary Eickmeier That's a separate issue. Whatever the source, however ineptly or wrong-headed is the original recording, we, as listeners, are still, basically, trying to reproduce it. The goal is to accurately reproduce the soundfield captured by that recording and to present it, in our listening environment, as little changed from the original as possible. That makes flat frequency response, measured at your listening position very important. Luckily, the human ear has a lot of latitude in this respect and will accept less than perfect frequency response and still regard the result as high-fidelity. Makers of $20000 speakers will tell you otherwise... (but I totally agree) On a sidenote, some speaker manufacturers, and audio critics make a big point of breaking in the speakers. Lately I've been reading some articles on the matter, and especially one, (was it The Audio Critic?) claims that the "breaking-in" never ends. The point being that breaking-in happens every time you start using the speakers, in the first1-3 seconds of playing music. The dramatic tales of cold, sterile, bassless, dead sound from factory-fresh speakers are clearly dismissed. In technical terms, the only element of a speaker that could theoretically change characteristics during time and use is the suspension. It follows that if it did so, then the manufacturers who has spent countless hours calculating cabinet volume and frequency response would have a serious problem. The logical conclusion is that the "breaking-in" happens in the listeners ear, while the listener gets used to the sound from his new speakers. And then we're back to the main point; that the ear will accept less than perfect frequency response... *when it's used to that particular frequency response* ______________ Digiman |
#17
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 14:28:23 -0700, Howard Davis wrote
(in article ): "Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ... "Howard Davis" wrote in message ... What is really desirable is flat frequency response AT THE LISTENING POSITION - the "sweet spot." This is exactly opposite of the truth. Speakers that are flat to a measuring microphone in an anechoic chamber will have a natural, desirable fall-off of the high frequencies in a good sized room, as will live instruments. This is provided they have a very wide, even radiation pattern, preferably dipole or omni, and are placed a few feet from all walls. It is not the opposite of the truth. The point at which your ears are located are all that counts; it would be impossible to equalize for flat response over a large part of, no less an entire room. If a rolloff of the highs sounds more natural to you, turning down the treble control a bit will give you that. Then the serious audiophile uses, or hires a tech to install and set up, a GRAPHIC EQUALIZER - at least 10 band, preferably more - to minimize the nonlinearities in the frequency response at the primary listening position. I use a DOD 231Q 31- band dual (2 channel) graphic EQ. The settings for both channels are the same as the speakers are matched and symmetrically located. You've got to be careful here. "Flat" at one point in the room could be greatly mistaken. What is desirable is a power response that takes on a room curve with slightly tapering high frequencies. You measure this by moving the microphone over an area, not just in one spot, and averaging. Setting equalization for flatter response over a larger area, based on the averaging of measurements, certainly can be done, but this compromises the flatness at a smaller "sweet spot." Truly flat response input to ear, even if only within +/- a few db over the entire audio spectrum, will absolutely amaze you! And blister your ears off. I fail to see how. The poster is alluding to the fact that real music does not have flat "power response". IOW, real music rolls-off in intensity as the frequency rises. Ostensibly, a signal that creates the same SPL at, say, 10KHz as it does at 1 Khz or 100 Hz will be ear-bleedingly bright. Since most people over 30 have gradually falling high frequency hearing, and because most ensembles are miked far enough away so that high-frequency content follows the inverse-square law of sound propagation (intensity falls-off at a rate inversely proportional to the square of the distance) or, has been EQed at the mixing desk to avoid being to "too hot", then it's probably not all that important. |
#18
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 14:29:11 -0700, Digiman wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 07:25:55 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... Simply put: You are, ostensibly, trying to reproduce a performance that already exists, not create a new one. Anything that adds or subtracts anything from the original performance is veering away from that goal. It's OK, if that' what you want, but it's not "high-fidelity". It sure seems like that would be the case, but it's not. Think about a mult-miked pop or even most classical and jazz recordings that are very close-miked and then mixed down to a master recording according to the judgement and taste of the engineer. Some recordings are even made with all instruments isolated from each other so that the engineer has max control over the mix with minimal bleed-thru. There is no "original event" as such, witnessed from the best seat in the house by the perfect microphone - unless you are a gigantic man from Mars with 37 ears or live under the lid of a piano or hovering over the drum kit. Gary Eickmeier That's a separate issue. Whatever the source, however ineptly or wrong-headed is the original recording, we, as listeners, are still, basically, trying to reproduce it. The goal is to accurately reproduce the soundfield captured by that recording and to present it, in our listening environment, as little changed from the original as possible. That makes flat frequency response, measured at your listening position very important. Luckily, the human ear has a lot of latitude in this respect and will accept less than perfect frequency response and still regard the result as high-fidelity. Makers of $20000 speakers will tell you otherwise... (but I totally agree) On a sidenote, some speaker manufacturers, and audio critics make a big point of breaking in the speakers. Lately I've been reading some articles on the matter, and especially one, (was it The Audio Critic?) claims that the "breaking-in" never ends. The point being that breaking-in happens every time you start using the speakers, in the first1-3 seconds of playing music. The dramatic tales of cold, sterile, bassless, dead sound from factory-fresh speakers are clearly dismissed. In technical terms, the only element of a speaker that could theoretically change characteristics during time and use is the suspension. It follows that if it did so, then the manufacturers who has spent countless hours calculating cabinet volume and frequency response would have a serious problem. The logical conclusion is that the "breaking-in" happens in the listeners ear, while the listener gets used to the sound from his new speakers. And then we're back to the main point; that the ear will accept less than perfect frequency response... *when it's used to that particular frequency response* ______________ Digiman There is probably more mythology associated with the hobby of stereo than any other avocation (with the possible exception of devil worship ;-). Myrtle wood blocks, speaker cables the size of municipal fire-hoses, $4000/meter interconnects, special power cables, elevators for speaker cable, free-standing wooden "sculptures" to enhance "imaging" and green pens all make the audio snake-oil salesman and the gullible, neurotic audiophile life-long partners in an endless bunko dance. There may well be something to initial speaker break-in. When things like speaker cone surrounds are first manufactured, they are going to be stiffer than they will be after flexing for a few thousand cycles. This loosening of the suspension can be easily demonstrated. Take a piece of cardboard like a shirt card, and bend it. Then with your hands, bend it back and forward until it looses all of its stiffness at the bend. Soon, it won't even stay where you bend it, but will just drop with gravity. Ostensibly, this is what happens to the flexible areas on loudspeakers and it seems to me that this cannot help but change the free-air resonance of the driver by making the cone more compliant and less resistive to movement. Whether one can actually HEAR the difference between two identical drivers, one which has a 100 hours of break-in on it and another, straight out of the box, is another matter. Maybe, but I tend to doubt it. |
#19
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 10, 7:25*am, "Gary Eickmeier" wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message ... Simply put: You are, ostensibly, *trying to reproduce a performance that already exists, not create a new one. Anything that adds or subtracts anything from the original performance is veering away from that goal. It's OK, if that' what you want, but it's not "high-fidelity". It sure seems like that would be the case, but it's not. Think about a mult-miked pop or even most classical and jazz recordings that are very close-miked and then mixed down to a master recording according to the judgement and taste of the engineer. Some recordings are even made with all instruments isolated from each other so that the engineer has max control over the mix with minimal bleed-thru. There is no "original event" as such, witnessed from the best seat in the house by the perfect microphone - unless you are a gigantic man from Mars with 37 ears or live under the lid of a piano or hovering over the drum kit. Gary Eickmeier Sounds like you are proposing a bad fix for bad recordings at the expense of every decent to excellent recording. Poorly engineered mulitmiked recordings splashed all over the walls isn't my idea of high end audio. |
#20
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 11, 3:43 am, Sonnova wrote:
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 07:25:55 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote ......... That's a separate issue. Whatever the source, however ineptly or wrong-headed is the original recording, we, as listeners, are still, basically, trying to reproduce it. The goal is to accurately reproduce the soundfield captured by that recording and to present it, in our listening environment, as little changed from the original as possible. That makes flat frequency response, measured at your listening position very important. Luckily, the human ear has a lot of latitude in this respect and will accept less than perfect frequency response and still regard the result as high-fidelity. Please correct me if I am wrong, my understanding is recording engineers mix various musical piece based on what sounds good or right as to how the composition should sound based on their own ears. But human ears perceived loudness drops sharply below 250hz. Theoretically if my room's frequency response is flat then I should able to repeat the same. But let's say at x level the recorded loudness of 31.5hz is 100db and at 500hz is 44db then will my room produce the same loudness at x level? Or all this is only possible if the recording mix environment/room frequency response is identical to my room. How do we know that ? And my feeling is most music is meant for people who listen in normal environment such as living hall without boom trap and other audiophile gadgets. which generally gives out louder bass. ST |
#21
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... That's a separate issue. Whatever the source, however ineptly or wrong-headed is the original recording, we, as listeners, are still, basically, trying to reproduce it. The goal is to accurately reproduce the soundfield captured by that recording and to present it, in our listening environment, as little changed from the original as possible. That makes flat frequency response, measured at your listening position very important. Luckily, the human ear has a lot of latitude in this respect and will accept less than perfect frequency response and still regard the result as high-fidelity. But the reproduction problem is a lot more complex than just placing two speakers at an angle in front of you and keeping frequency response flat and distortion low. If it were that simple, there would be no need for an entire society devoted to audio reproduction, project after project of research trying to figure out how to do it better. The first step is to realize that the reproduction is a completely new piece of art, or event. The goal of that work of art may indeed be to try to transport you to the location of the original recording, or it may be a work in and of itself, like some synthesizer stuff and pop recordings. In either case, frequency response and distortion are but a small part of the problem, or aspects of a sound event. If you consider the total event as the "thing" that we are trying to reproduce, then you must attempt to come as close to all aspects of the sound as you can. To do that, you've got to know more than frequency response and distortion. Consider photography as an example from the visual arts. The engineer in you thinks that the photograph will be "accurate" if you can reproduce perfect color and sharpness, and keep noise and distortions low. But if you consider all aspects of the original scene that you are trying to reproduce with the photo, you can easily see that the photo, no matter how "accurate," will not fool anyone into thinking they are at the original scene. It is a new piece of art in and of itself. But it has no three-dimensionality, is not as big as the original, and not as bright in the highlights - to name just a few aspects that have not been reproduced. There's a lot more to it than that, but for now all I want to establish is that the complex original sound field has been compressed into two or more channels of electrical signal. How those signals are treated at the playback end is the problem, and it is more complicated than just frequency response and distortion, and a far more productive path to follow would be to create a new sound event in your playback room - one that has more of the aspects of the original and of good sound than your expressed engineering insticts have suggested. Gary Eickmeier |
#22
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 19:26:12 -0700, ST wrote
(in article ): On Apr 11, 3:43 am, Sonnova wrote: On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 07:25:55 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote ........ That's a separate issue. Whatever the source, however ineptly or wrong-headed is the original recording, we, as listeners, are still, basically, trying to reproduce it. The goal is to accurately reproduce the soundfield captured by that recording and to present it, in our listening environment, as little changed from the original as possible. That makes flat frequency response, measured at your listening position very important. Luckily, the human ear has a lot of latitude in this respect and will accept less than perfect frequency response and still regard the result as high-fidelity. Please correct me if I am wrong, my understanding is recording engineers mix various musical piece based on what sounds good or right as to how the composition should sound based on their own ears. But human ears perceived loudness drops sharply below 250hz. Theoretically if my room's frequency response is flat then I should able to repeat the same. But let's say at x level the recorded loudness of 31.5hz is 100db and at 500hz is 44db then will my room produce the same loudness at x level? Or all this is only possible if the recording mix environment/room frequency response is identical to my room. How do we know that ? And my feeling is most music is meant for people who listen in normal environment such as living hall without boom trap and other audiophile gadgets. which generally gives out louder bass. ST We don't have anyway of knowing how a recording sounded in the studio. We don't know the equipment used, the monitoring speakers used, the room dimensions, the room acoustics, none of that. That's why I am of the opinion that studio recorded music cannot EVER be high-fidelity. You get high-fidelity with some kind of stereo-pair microphone arrangement placed in front of an ensemble in a real space and recorded directly. No mixing, no monitoring other than headphones. The resultant recording (two channel, four channel, whatever) goes directly to CD/SACD/Hi-Res and gets played back through the requisite number of channels. If the playback chain is wide-range and generally flat in frequency response and low in distortion, the listener will get a reasonable facsimile of the original performance. Anything else is a re-interpretation of the musicians intent. That's my opinion, anyway. |
#23
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote in message
... On Apr 10, 7:25 am, "Gary Eickmeier" wrote: It sure seems like that would be the case, but it's not. Think about a mult-miked pop or even most classical and jazz recordings that are very close-miked and then mixed down to a master recording according to the judgement and taste of the engineer. Some recordings are even made with all instruments isolated from each other so that the engineer has max control over the mix with minimal bleed-thru. There is no "original event" as such, witnessed from the best seat in the house by the perfect microphone - unless you are a gigantic man from Mars with 37 ears or live under the lid of a piano or hovering over the drum kit. Gary Eickmeier Sounds like you are proposing a bad fix for bad recordings at the expense of every decent to excellent recording. Poorly engineered mulitmiked recordings splashed all over the walls isn't my idea of high end audio. So the only good recordings are purist two microphone, perhaps Blumlein pair recordings? "Splashed all over the walls"? Where did that come from? Gary Eickmeier |
#24
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 10, 9:18*pm, Sonnova wrote:
There may well be something to initial speaker break-in. When things like speaker cone surrounds are first manufactured, they are going to be stiffer than they will be after flexing for a few thousand cycles. Which, of course, is accomplished in a few seconds of QC testing for rub and buzz, for example. This loosening of the suspension can be easily demonstrated. Take a piece of cardboard like a shirt card, and bend it. Then with your hands, bend it back and forward until it looses all of its stiffness at the bend. Soon, it won't even stay where you bend it, but will just drop with gravity. Ostensibly, this is what happens to the flexible areas on loudspeakers and it seems to me that this cannot help but change the free-air resonance of the driver by making the cone more compliant and less resistive to movement. Except that shirt cardboard and the material used to make the suspension parts of loudspeakers are vastly different materials. Try your same experiment with a sheet of a polybutadene-styrene alloy, and you will find a very different result: that flexing the material enough will slightly raise its temperature, and its mechanical compliance does change, not because of "break-in", but because of the change in temperature. Put your piece of shirt cardboard and the piece of polybutadene-styrene down for a minute and repeat the experiment. The shirt cardboard will still be limo and, well, as borken as it was when you broke it, the polytbutadene-styrene allot will look and behave just like it it when you first picked it up. There's another flaw to your experiment: your shirt cardboard gets flexed FAR beyond its linear elastic limits and is not "broken in," it's just plain BROKEN. |
#25
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 11, 3:20*am, "Gary Eickmeier" wrote:
wrote in message ... On Apr 10, 7:25 am, "Gary Eickmeier" wrote: It sure seems like that would be the case, but it's not. Think about a mult-miked pop or even most classical and jazz recordings that are very close-miked and then mixed down to a master recording according to the judgement and taste of the engineer. Some recordings are even made with all instruments isolated from each other so that the engineer has max control over the mix with minimal bleed-thru. There is no "original event" as such, witnessed from the best seat in the house by the perfect microphone - unless you are a gigantic man from Mars with 37 ears or live under the lid of a piano or hovering over the drum kit. Gary Eickmeier Sounds like you are proposing a bad fix for bad recordings at the expense of every decent to excellent recording. Poorly engineered mulitmiked recordings splashed all over the walls isn't my idea of high end audio. So the only good recordings are purist two microphone, perhaps Blumlein pair recordings? "Splashed all over the walls"? Where did that come from? Gary Eickmeier- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - It comes from placing dipoles or omnies close to the back wall. |
#26
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 11, 12:49 pm, Sonnova wrote:
......... We don't have anyway of knowing how a recording sounded in the studio. We don't know the equipment used, the monitoring speakers used, the room dimensions, the room acoustics, none of that. That's why I am of the opinion that studio recorded music cannot EVER be high-fidelity. You get high-fidelity with some kind of stereo-pair microphone arrangement placed in front of an ensemble in a real space and recorded directly. No mixing, no monitoring other than headphones. The resultant recording (two channel, four channel, whatever) goes directly to CD/SACD/Hi-Res and gets played back through the requisite number of channels. If the playback chain is wide-range and generally flat in frequency response and low in distortion, the listener will get a reasonable facsimile of the original performance. Anything else is a re-interpretation of the musicians intent. That's my opinion, anyway. Waterlily Acoustic claims so . Remember Tabala Rasa? But it sound so dead to me. |
#27
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 6, 10:43*am, ST wrote:
Hi everyone, Why is it that a room with slightly higher response level below 80hz sounds more engaging than an average flat frequency response room. When I say flat it doesn't mean ruler flat but overall 5 db difference across the spectrum except for 5 or 6 peaks more than 12db peak. Your opinion, please. Regards, ST Well, if a flat frequency response is not desirable, then the program material must need some help. If all aspects of the recording are respected to their true source dimensions, there would be no need to alter frequency response. Frequency response of a speaker system within a given listening room is important to accuracy, but not always the most important critical factor. Bass, and mid bass boost are known to improve the sound impressions when playback is at low to moderate sound pressure levels. This is reinforced by the inclusion of the "loudness" switch on many preamps and receivers. However, when sound pressure levels approach the actual performance levels, this feature is less pronounced in effectiveness and desirability. Playback of good quality signal at actual performance SPL should not require any major equalization corrections to sound accurate. This depends upon the room and speakers being matched and complementary to enable a good stereo image and void of objectionable resonance or standing waves. Where is this going? I've had this deja vu before with this same debate on the horizon. This has been beat to death without an objective winner. Won't happen this time either. Aaaarrrgh, Don. |
#28
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#29
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 11, 2:13*pm, wrote:
Well, if a flat frequency response is not desirable, then the program material must need some help. * Hardly the only possibility. Basically, it's because the listener has an expectation of what it SHOULD sound like, and the presentation needs to be adjusted to meet that expectation. That includes all sorts of possibilities, including program material needing help, the listeners expectations at variance with some reality and so forth. If all aspects of the recording are respected to their true source dimensions, there would be no need to alter frequency response. Simple not true: you assume that a neutral, uncolored presentation is the ONLY correct one for all listeners. Frequency response of a speaker system within a given listening room is important to accuracy, Again, your premise assumes that a clear definition of accuracy is agreed upon and the result is accepted by all. It is not. Playback of good quality signal at actual performance SPL should not require any major equalization corrections to sound accurate. Again, you assume that a. everyone agrees upon the same definition of "accuracy" and b. everyone agrees that accuracy is THE goal. This depends upon the room and speakers being matched and complementary to enable a good stereo image and void of objectionable resonance or standing waves. In a word, no. Among other things, you're assuming that response magnitude is he only variable. It most assuredly is not. The fact is that a standing wave in a room can well be a non-mininum phase error, and attempting to correct it with a non-minimum phase speaker response or a different non-minimum phase response will not work. Simply put: a complimentary speaker response to a room error is complimentary ONLY in one domain, (response magnitude vs frequency) and is NOT other, equally critical domans (e.g. phase of time vs frequency). Where is this going? *I've had this deja vu before with this same debate on the horizon. *This has been beat to death without an objective winner. Often time, by being clubbed to death by quite non-objective or just plain "technical" wrong arguments. |
#30
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 21:48:37 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... That's a separate issue. Whatever the source, however ineptly or wrong-headed is the original recording, we, as listeners, are still, basically, trying to reproduce it. The goal is to accurately reproduce the soundfield captured by that recording and to present it, in our listening environment, as little changed from the original as possible. That makes flat frequency response, measured at your listening position very important. Luckily, the human ear has a lot of latitude in this respect and will accept less than perfect frequency response and still regard the result as high-fidelity. But the reproduction problem is a lot more complex than just placing two speakers at an angle in front of you and keeping frequency response flat and distortion low. If it were that simple, there would be no need for an entire society devoted to audio reproduction, project after project of research trying to figure out how to do it better. But there really isn't much more to it than that. The problem arises because even today, with our advanced materials technology and good electronics, we can't accomplish this simple task very well. That's why interpretive talent has to be between the musicians and the final recording. The first step is to realize that the reproduction is a completely new piece of art, or event. The goal of that work of art may indeed be to try to transport you to the location of the original recording, or it may be a work in and of itself, like some synthesizer stuff and pop recordings. In either case, frequency response and distortion are but a small part of the problem, or aspects of a sound event. If you consider the total event as the "thing" that we are trying to reproduce, then you must attempt to come as close to all aspects of the sound as you can. To do that, you've got to know more than frequency response and distortion. While I agree, It's also largely irrelevant to the point. Consider photography as an example from the visual arts. The engineer in you thinks that the photograph will be "accurate" if you can reproduce perfect color and sharpness, and keep noise and distortions low. But if you consider all aspects of the original scene that you are trying to reproduce with the photo, you can easily see that the photo, no matter how "accurate," will not fool anyone into thinking they are at the original scene. It is a new piece of art in and of itself. But it has no three-dimensionality, is not as big as the original, and not as bright in the highlights - to name just a few aspects that have not been reproduced. That's my point. Since the process is imperfect, the process becomes the limiting factor and therefore must be "manipulated" to produce a desired result. There's a lot more to it than that, but for now all I want to establish is that the complex original sound field has been compressed into two or more channels of electrical signal. How those signals are treated at the playback end is the problem, and it is more complicated than just frequency response and distortion, and a far more productive path to follow would be to create a new sound event in your playback room - one that has more of the aspects of the original and of good sound than your expressed engineering insticts have suggested. But it doesn't need to be if all we are trying to do is to capture a performance for playback. Unfortunately, many different types of music don't respond to those techniques. |
#31
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 14:28:23 -0700, Howard Davis wrote (in article ): "Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ... "Howard Davis" wrote in message ... What is really desirable is flat frequency response AT THE LISTENING POSITION - the "sweet spot." This is exactly opposite of the truth. Speakers that are flat to a measuring microphone in an anechoic chamber will have a natural, desirable fall-off of the high frequencies in a good sized room, as will live instruments. This is provided they have a very wide, even radiation pattern, preferably dipole or omni, and are placed a few feet from all walls. It is not the opposite of the truth. The point at which your ears are located are all that counts; it would be impossible to equalize for flat response over a large part of, no less an entire room. If a rolloff of the highs sounds more natural to you, turning down the treble control a bit will give you that. Then the serious audiophile uses, or hires a tech to install and set up, a GRAPHIC EQUALIZER - at least 10 band, preferably more - to minimize the nonlinearities in the frequency response at the primary listening position. I use a DOD 231Q 31- band dual (2 channel) graphic EQ. The settings for both channels are the same as the speakers are matched and symmetrically located. You've got to be careful here. "Flat" at one point in the room could be greatly mistaken. What is desirable is a power response that takes on a room curve with slightly tapering high frequencies. You measure this by moving the microphone over an area, not just in one spot, and averaging. Setting equalization for flatter response over a larger area, based on the averaging of measurements, certainly can be done, but this compromises the flatness at a smaller "sweet spot." Truly flat response input to ear, even if only within +/- a few db over the entire audio spectrum, will absolutely amaze you! And blister your ears off. I fail to see how. The poster is alluding to the fact that real music does not have flat "power response". IOW, real music rolls-off in intensity as the frequency rises. Ostensibly, a signal that creates the same SPL at, say, 10KHz as it does at 1 Khz or 100 Hz will be ear-bleedingly bright. Since most people over 30 have gradually falling high frequency hearing, and because most ensembles are miked far enough away so that high-frequency content follows the inverse-square law of sound propagation (intensity falls-off at a rate inversely proportional to the square of the distance) or, has been EQed at the mixing desk to avoid being to "too hot", then it's probably not all that important. A truly flat reproduction system will recreate the relative sound levels over the audio spectrum exactly as they were recorded. I expect that when the recording techniques are correct, and the recording microphone to final reproduction at the ears is truly flat, you will hear exactly the sounds that were recorded. |
#32
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 03:20:33 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article ): wrote in message ... On Apr 10, 7:25 am, "Gary Eickmeier" wrote: It sure seems like that would be the case, but it's not. Think about a mult-miked pop or even most classical and jazz recordings that are very close-miked and then mixed down to a master recording according to the judgement and taste of the engineer. Some recordings are even made with all instruments isolated from each other so that the engineer has max control over the mix with minimal bleed-thru. There is no "original event" as such, witnessed from the best seat in the house by the perfect microphone - unless you are a gigantic man from Mars with 37 ears or live under the lid of a piano or hovering over the drum kit. Gary Eickmeier Sounds like you are proposing a bad fix for bad recordings at the expense of every decent to excellent recording. Poorly engineered mulitmiked recordings splashed all over the walls isn't my idea of high end audio. So the only good recordings are purist two microphone, perhaps Blumlein pair recordings? As far as I'm concerned, that's true. |
#33
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Sonnova" wrote in message
There may well be something to initial speaker break-in. When things like speaker cone surrounds are first manufactured, they are going to be stiffer than they will be after flexing for a few thousand cycles. That's a supposition, for which I see zero evidence. It is highly improbable that something will change rapidly over flexing over a few thousand cycles, and then suddenly stop changing at the point where it performs ideally, and stay that way from then on. For openers, a speaker cone flexes at a rate equal to the highest frequency it reproduces. This can easily be 20 KHz. The alleged thousand flexures can thus take place in the first 20 milliseconds of operation. This varies sharply from audiophile lore, which has break-in taking place OVER a period of days or weeks. My friend who actually test speakers for this sort of thing finds that speakers may change their properties during the first fraction of a second to several seconds of operation, every time they are restarted after a LONG period of rest. The speaker then stabilizes. In general nobody is likely to notice a rapid change like this. |
#34
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 11, 3:20*am, "Gary Eickmeier" wrote:
wrote in message ... On Apr 10, 7:25 am, "Gary Eickmeier" wrote: It sure seems like that would be the case, but it's not. Think about a mult-miked pop or even most classical and jazz recordings that are very close-miked and then mixed down to a master recording according to the judgement and taste of the engineer. Some recordings are even made with all instruments isolated from each other so that the engineer has max control over the mix with minimal bleed-thru. There is no "original event" as such, witnessed from the best seat in the house by the perfect microphone - unless you are a gigantic man from Mars with 37 ears or live under the lid of a piano or hovering over the drum kit. Gary Eickmeier Sounds like you are proposing a bad fix for bad recordings at the expense of every decent to excellent recording. Poorly engineered mulitmiked recordings splashed all over the walls isn't my idea of high end audio. So the only good recordings are purist two microphone, perhaps Blumlein pair recordings? A "good" recording is any recording that is deemed so by the listener. If one is looking for the best illusion of an original acoustic performance from a single perspective then I'd say the only recordings that really excel are indeed purist recordings such as those recorded with the Blumlein paired microphones. If you are listening to Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon or some other studio creation naturally the standards of excellence become much more subjective. But IME even those recordings tend to sound their best on the same hardware that best supports the purist recordings. |
#35
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 10, 9:48*pm, "Gary Eickmeier" wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message ... That's a separate issue. Whatever the source, however ineptly or wrong-headed is the original recording, we, as listeners, are still, basically, trying to reproduce it. The goal is to accurately reproduce the soundfield captured by that recording and to present it, in our listening environment, as little changed from the original as possible. That makes flat frequency response, measured at your listening position very important. Luckily, the human ear has a lot of latitude in this respect and will accept less than perfect frequency response and still regard the result as high-fidelity. But the reproduction problem is a lot more complex than just placing two speakers at an angle in front of you and keeping frequency response flat and distortion low. Of course it is a lot more complex than that for the simple reason that there is more in the entire chain of events than a speaker system/ listening room interface involved in stereo recording and playback. If it were that simple, there would be no need for an entire society devoted to audio reproduction, project after project of research trying to figure out how to do it better. Actually if it were that simple the problems still would not be solved so I don't think your argument holds water. You will not find a ruler flat,distortion free speaker system on this planet. One person's simple is another's life labor. The first step is to realize that the reproduction is a completely new piece of art, or event. The goal of that work of art may indeed be to try to transport you to the location of the original recording, or it may be a work in and of itself, like some synthesizer stuff and pop recordings. In either case, frequency response and distortion are but a small part of the problem, or aspects of a sound event. If you consider the total event as the "thing" that we are trying to reproduce, then you must attempt to come as close to all aspects of the sound as you can. To do that, you've got to know more than frequency response and distortion. You had me until you said frequency response and distortion are a small part of the problem. In a stereo recording and playback system where the goal is to create an illusion of an original acoustic event from a designated perspective you can't dismiss frequency resonse and distortion as trivial. They are pretty much everything that determines the success of the illusion. What else is there? Consider photography as an example from the visual arts. The engineer in you thinks that the photograph will be "accurate" if you can reproduce perfect color and sharpness, and keep noise and distortions low. But if you consider all aspects of the original scene that you are trying to reproduce with the photo, you can easily see that the photo, no matter how "accurate," will not fool anyone into thinking they are at the original scene. It is a new piece of art in and of itself. But it has no three-dimensionality, is not as big as the original, and not as bright in the highlights - to name just a few aspects that have not been reproduced. Analogies prove nothing but if they did you would have just shot down your own argument. In fact we do use photographic images all the time in the film industry to do just that, fooling the audience into thinking what they are seeing is the real thing rather than a photographic image. The trick is simple. the image has to be in the right scale and has to match the lense used to take the image with the audience's perspective. It's trick that can be done quite effectively in real life too. The final image simply has to be printed or projected in the correct scale and displayed so that the lense used to capture the image will corispond with the veiwers perspective. But anyway....... There's a lot more to it than that, but for now all I want to establish is that the complex original sound field has been compressed into two or more channels of electrical signal. Actually it hasn't. You pointed it out yourself. " The first step is to realize that the reproduction is a completely new piece of art, or event. The goal of that work of art may indeed be to try to transport you to the location of the original recording," That is essentially right. You can't record the original three dimensional soundfield of the original event. all a recording engineer can do with consideration of how stereo recording and playback works, is choose a single listener perspective and engineer a recording that best creates the illusion of the original event from that single perspective. How those signals are treated at the playback end is the problem, and it is more complicated than just frequency response and distortion, and a far more productive path to follow would be to create a new sound event in your playback room - one that has more of the aspects of the original and of good sound than your expressed engineering insticts have suggested. IME if the recording engineer has talent and taste and a basic understanding of this simple idea that stereo recording at it's best will capture a performance from a single listener perspective with the idea of playback creating an illusion of that experience, the best way to create that illusion is with relatively low distortion speakers and minimal listening room coloration. I'm not saying that all distortion is always bad. I think there are inherent limitations in the system as a whole and I *suspect* that like spice in fine foods, a little bit can enhance the final product. But I think dipoles or omnis placed near the back wall is more than just a little distortion added as spice. It's like a proverbial stick of pepper. |
#36
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 17:57:44 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message There may well be something to initial speaker break-in. When things like speaker cone surrounds are first manufactured, they are going to be stiffer than they will be after flexing for a few thousand cycles. That's a supposition, for which I see zero evidence. I just love to be quoted out of context. Did you not see the rest of my comment where I said that While it was possible, I DOUBT IT? It is highly improbable that something will change rapidly over flexing over a few thousand cycles, and then suddenly stop changing at the point where it performs ideally, and stay that way from then on. That is correct. For openers, a speaker cone flexes at a rate equal to the highest frequency it reproduces. This can easily be 20 KHz. The alleged thousand flexures can thus take place in the first 20 milliseconds of operation. This varies sharply from audiophile lore, which has break-in taking place OVER a period of days or weeks. My friend who actually test speakers for this sort of thing finds that speakers may change their properties during the first fraction of a second to several seconds of operation, every time they are restarted after a LONG period of rest. The speaker then stabilizes. In general nobody is likely to notice a rapid change like this. Precisely what I would expect. Yet I have seen speakers where the manufacturer's instructions tell the new owner that the speaker won't sound its best until AFTER a 100 hrs or so of break-in. Why propagate mythology? |
#37
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 12, 11:48*am, Sonnova wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 17:57:44 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message There may well be something to initial speaker break-in. When things like speaker cone surrounds are first manufactured, they are going to be stiffer than they will be after flexing for a few thousand cycles. That's a supposition, for which I see zero evidence. I just love to be quoted out of context. Did you not see the rest of my comment where I said that *While it was possible, I DOUBT IT? It is highly improbable that something will change rapidly over flexing over a few thousand cycles, and then suddenly stop changing at the point where it performs ideally, and stay that way from then on. That is correct. For openers, a speaker cone flexes at a rate equal to the highest frequency it reproduces. This can easily be 20 KHz. The alleged thousand flexures can thus take place in the first 20 milliseconds of operation. This varies sharply from audiophile lore, which has break-in taking place OVER a period of days or weeks. My friend who actually test speakers for this sort of thing finds that speakers may change their properties during the first fraction of a second to several seconds of operation, every time they are restarted after a LONG period of rest. *The speaker then stabilizes. In general nobody is likely to notice a rapid change like this. Precisely what I would expect. Yet I have seen speakers where the manufacturer's instructions tell the new owner that the speaker won't sound its best until AFTER a 100 hrs or so of break-in. Why propagate mythology? Well here is a story that you all might find hard to believe but I have witnessed the phenomenon first hand. Knowing that I was the owner of the original Martin Logan CLSs and that i was less than impressed by the CLS IIs and the CLS IIas, my Martin Logan dealer had me over to audition the CLS MkIIzs. We did side by side comparisons and sure enough the IIz upgrade was indeed a significant upgrade. So I upgraded my Martin Logan CLSs. They sounded like crap. I brought them back and sure enough in side by side comparisons my new CLS IIzs were defective. The dealer assured me that it was a "break in" thing and I had to give the speakers 100 hours. I took the speakers home and ran them continuously for four days and nights at fairly high SPLs. Then I immedietly took them back to the dealer without so much as a second listen. I simply did not believe that any sort of break in could fix the problems and that the ungraded parts had to be defective in some way. Well, guess what? They were pretty much identical to the display models. I'm pretty sure I didn't imagine differences that weren't there the first time around. They literally sounded as though there was some defect before the "break in." |
#38
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote in message ...
It comes from placing dipoles or omnies close to the back wall. OK now this is getting really frustrating. Where did "placing dipoles or omnis close to the back wall" come from? Gary Eickmeier |
#39
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#40
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote in message
... But I think dipoles or omnis placed near the back wall is more than just a little distortion added as spice. It's like a proverbial stick of pepper. You raise some potentially interesting points, but I am not going to go any further unless you explain where "dipoles or omnis placed near the back wall" came from. Need to know you are actually listening. Gary Eickmeier |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Why are mic made with non flat frequency response? | Pro Audio | |||
Frequency Response of XM | High End Audio | |||
Frequency response | Pro Audio | |||
Frequency response | Pro Audio | |||
Mic Frequency Response | Pro Audio |