Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do we need science in subjective audio "reviewing"?
some people have hastened to suggest that there is a sharp divide
concerning the use of science vs. subjective belief systems in audio. I would be happy to see one subjective audio "reviewer" and fellow traveler marketing dept. who don't turn to asserted scientific validation as quickly as they do to reporting of their perceptual events when listening to some bit of gear and what sonic delight will follow the purchase of same.. This can be as simple as suggesting that the speed of woofer movement makes for "fast" bass or the need to inhibit vibration in solid state audio amps. The $3000 wire folk turn to pulling the cloak of science about their sholders by offering that skin effect or quantum electron alignment or some such the source of the reported perception events the item is said to produce. They will even give us numbers and pretty graphs to that effect. Almost without exception a reviewer will include such marketing blurbs as the proported science underlying the perception effect if they have none of their own to offer. We who are of the view that the source of the reported perception event likely lies in the brain and not the object need not even evoke any science. We need only request simple common sense and simple logic. If the object said to be the source of the perception event is inserted and removed without the listeners knowledge and the perception effect can not be shown beyond chance to track accordingly, a simple bit of deduction best describes the outcome. We need not appeal to what science is violated in the reported source of the perception event at all nor show the claimed but not previously demonstrated science evoked by the subjective event reporter is not substantuated. We need not know anything at all about electronics or acoustics nor psycho/perceptual matters. We need only to show that the reported perception event doesn't track the presence or not of the bit of audio gear said to be it's source. If it does not track the matter is settled, if it does then turning to science makes sense least we get our cart before the horse. |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do we need science in subjective audio "reviewing"?
wrote in message
... snip We who are of the view that the source of the reported perception event likely lies in the brain and not the object need not even evoke any science. We need only request simple common sense and simple logic. snip Your argument fails from its own contradictions. Those folks claiming that the ocean was flat, or that the sun truly rose in the east and circled the earth had common sense and apparent logic on their side as well. Sometimes reality is counterintuitive. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do we need science in subjective audio "reviewing"?
On Jul 18, 6:48 pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
wrote in message ... snip We who are of the view that the source of the reported perception event likely lies in the brain and not the object need not even evoke any science. We need only request simple common sense and simple logic. snip Your argument fails from its own contradictions. Those folks claiming that the ocean was flat, or that the sun truly rose in the east and circled the earth had common sense and apparent logic on their side as well. Sometimes reality is counterintuitive. Indeed. Use the typical "common sense" to explain sampling. Use "common sense" to explain why the Einstein-Podolski-Rosen paradox. Use common sense to explain why a narrower port has MORE acoustic mass than a wider one of the same elngth. On the other hand, the fact that a LOT of things are counterintuitive to "common sense" doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to improve the state of "common sense," and, so far, in describing the physical world, the ONLY thing that has reliably worked is science. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do we need science in subjective audio "reviewing"?
We who are of the view that the source of the reported perception event
likely lies in the brain and not the object need not even evoke any science. We need only request simple common sense and simple logic. snip "Your argument fails from its own contradictions. Those folks claiming that the ocean was flat, or that the sun truly rose in the east and circled the earth had common sense and apparent logic on their side as well. Sometimes reality is counterintuitive." You would beright, if that was my argument. We observe that when the source is not known among two possible ones and the previously reported perception event fails to track switching between them accordingly,, the gig is up. That is the kind of common sense and logic I had in mind. Without any other knowledge necessary, any observer would say that the perception event does not match only one of the sources as was reported, so its origin must not be in either of the sources. The kind of failure of common sense and logic you mention is illustrated by those folk who claim that "fast bass" results from a lighter woofer cone being able to move faster. It is counter intutive to realize the flaw in that notion, as it is in a flat ocean and relative movement of earth and sun. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do we need science in subjective audio "reviewing"?
On Jul 19, 8:11*pm, wrote:
It is counter intutive to realize the flaw in that notion, as it is in a flat ocean and relative movement of earth and sun. When one searches for absolutes, one will almost inevitably be disappointed. So far, Death and Taxes do appear to be the only "settled absolutes" on the planet today. Distilling your post to its essence, it is (in my opinion) a plea for some sort of absolute - ain't gonna happen. Common sense isn't. I mentioned Clarke's Third Law the other day - there are four (the last one is quite recent). You would do well to look them up. By the way, Clarke's Fourth Law: For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert. About covers it. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do we need science in subjective audio "reviewing"?
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
When one searches for absolutes, one will almost inevitably be disappointed. So far, Death and Taxes do appear to be the only "settled absolutes" on the planet today. Paying taxes directly can and has been avoided. No relevant avoidances of death are known to exist, though the cryonics true believers thought that they would laugh at us from their icy non-graves when they were alive. Distilling your post to its essence, it is (in my opinion) a plea for some sort of absolute - ain't gonna happen. Absolutes do happen, and they goes well beyond the death thing. Checks clear the bank and stay cleared. Crap flushes and stays gone. Unless you are smoking some really good stuff, most of the stuff we take at face value in terms of physical occurrences really happens. Common sense isn't. Common sense says follow the evidence. I mentioned Clarke's Third Law the other day - there are four (the last one is quite recent). You would do well to look them up. By the way, Clarke's Fourth Law: For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert. About covers it. Well, that's why expert opinion is always in doubt. What isn't in doubt is reliable evidence. One important life skill is knowing it when you see it. |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do we need science in subjective audio "reviewing"?
It is counter intutive to realize the flaw in that notion, as it is in a
flat ocean and relative movement of earth and sun. When one searches for absolutes, one will almost inevitably be "disappointed. So far, Death and Taxes do appear to be the only "settled absolutes" on the planet today." Who said anything about absolutes? The case as it stands is that perception events commonly reported by subjective folk and said to be related to some bit of audio gear have a record of disappearing when the alleged source of that perception is not known to them. If that record should change course then so be it. Distilling your post to its essence, it is (in my opinion) a plea for "some sort of absolute - ain't gonna happen." Distilling your notion to its essence shows it a red herring as I have nothing of the kind in mind. See above. "Common sense isn't. I mentioned Clarke's Third Law the other day - there are four (the last one is quite recent). You would do well to look them up." I know it, and he a hard nose scientist to the end would request no less of subjective folk in supporting their claims then do I. The "magic" claimed by the subjective gurus does seem to fit his law doesn't it? "By the way, Clarke's Fourth Law: For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert." Fine, but he a hard nose scientist to the end would then proceed to qualify what an "expert" means in the context of audio reproduction. Do you think an astrologer would be included or one claiming esp, both areas having self declared experts. Outsor's first law, the rationalizations of the subjective audio radical fringe are of the same kind as those claimed in astrology and esp, especially in reasons they fail in being able to demonstrate basic truth claims about same. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do we need science in subjective audio "reviewing"?
Peter Wieck wrote:
By the way, Clarke's Fourth Law: For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert. About covers it. Except that Clarke was wrong about that. -- -S A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles" (1748) |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do we need science in subjective audio "reviewing"?
|
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do we need science in subjective audio "reviewing"?
|
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do we need science in subjective audio "reviewing"?
"C. Leeds" wrote in message
wrote: The kind of failure of common sense and logic you mention is illustrated by those folk who claim that "fast bass" results from a lighter woofer cone being able to move faster. Can you cite a source for this claim of yours? He can cite me, because I've been hearing this particular piece of weirdness on Usenet forums for over a decade. ;-) However, here are some links, one from people I'd hope knew better: http://www.d-s-t.com.au/caraudio/pdf...ss_sub_xls.pdf www.mtxaudio.eu/IMG/pdf/Leaflet_MTX_2004_uk.pdf |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do we need science in subjective audio "reviewing"?
|
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do we need science in subjective audio "reviewing"?
"C. Leeds" wrote in message
wrote: Outsor's first law, the rationalizations of the subjective audio radical fringe are of the same kind as those claimed in astrology and esp, especially in reasons they fail in being able to demonstrate basic truth claims about same. Agreed. When audiophiles claim sonic benefits for cables that make no corresponding changes to signals passing through them, in essence they are claiming physical effects due to non-physical occurrences. In short, miracles. This was the point I was making about this tired debate. There are extreme, thoughtless radicals on either side. For them, it is about religion, not science. Quickly bringing up the extreme, thoughtless radicals on either side and making them the center of one's contributions to the debate would seem to be an excluded-middle argument. |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do we need science in subjective audio "reviewing"?
The kind of failure of common sense and logic you mention is illustrated
by those folk who claim that "fast bass" results from a lighter woofer cone being able to move faster. "Can you cite a source for this claim of yours?" It is not my claim as though I thought of it, it has been discussed many times in many places. Here is one general discussion absent the math: 'SoundStage! Max dB - Fast Bass, Slow Bass - Myth vs. Fact' http://www.soundstage.com/maxdb/maxdb061999.htm It is an ironic observation that the same site has audio reviews where this very myth is evoked to explain what is said to be "fast" about a speaker. |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do we need science in subjective audio "reviewing"?
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:25:29 -0700, Robert Sink wrote
(in article ): writes: some people have hastened to suggest that there is a sharp divide concerning the use of science vs. subjective belief systems in audio. I would be happy to see one subjective audio "reviewer" and fellow traveler marketing dept. who don't turn to asserted scientific validation as [...] I think reviews are of limited use to begin with, especially when you are talking about a product that is either given away to review or put on long term loan to review, because there is a bias instilled in the reviewer to 'return the favor' so to speak. I assure you that there is no such bias. I have lambasted equipment that was given to me. If it doesn't perform, it doesn't perform. No ifs ands or buts. If a lot of people review a product favorably, then it may have some merit, but the most important part of the process to me is how that product sounds on my system. True enough. Having said that, there are a limited number of products that you can do this with; It's unlikely a company, for instance Theta (or their retailer), will let you audition their $10-15k Citadel monoblocks on your system. Hence, you are forced to believe reviews (be they based in reality, science, or some pseudo in between) and/or listen to said product on a completely different system in a completely different location. To my mind reviewers serve a couple of fairly important duties. First of all, the most successful of them are entertaining to read. Buff magazines like high-end audio rags are, after all. first and foremost, entertainment. Secondly, a reviewer can make the readership aware of (actually, "aware of" is not exactly the correct phrase; "familiar with" works better) products and procedures that the reader might have no previous knowledge of. Also, in that same vein, the reviewer might find some feature or control function that is not covered in the manufacturer's specs or product description. Case in point: I was looking for a video DVD recorder. I had just about settled on one particular Sony model after perusing the various manufacturer's web sites. Then I ran across a review of that burner. In the review, I found that it only had ONE S-VHS input connector and it was on the FRONT of the unit. Well, this wasn't reflected in any of the literature from Sony, and for my use was totally unacceptable. I was ready to order that model before I saw the review. I'd say that was a VERY useful review. In my opinion, a reviewer is best used as a tool to introduce and describe new equipment and further, to peak consumer interest. Using the reviewer's impressions of the performance of the device under consideration for anything other than as a broad brush stroke based upon previous experience with that reviewer's opinions, is a poor use of the review. What's important to me is being introduced to a product (review) and for me to be able to evaulate it on my system--everything else is pretty much noise because I'm unlikely to drop big bucks on something that I cannot directly evauluate the delta of on my system previously. And so you should not. Anyone who chooses equipment based solely upon a review is not a very smart shopper. It is this dilemma, given the cost, volume, and availability of high end audio that is the most stifling because there is no real suitable model for a consumer to evaulate a piece on their system unless they have a very strong relationship with a retailer (i.e. bought a lot from them previously) and even still, you are locked into what said retailer carries. Luckily, most electronics are so transparent these days, that choosing them is like choosing what flavor ice cream you want today. Speakers are more problematical. One MUST hear speakers in order to judge. Specs mean nothing in that particular area of audio. |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do we need science in subjective audio "reviewing"?
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 05:31:58 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "C. Leeds" wrote in message wrote: The kind of failure of common sense and logic you mention is illustrated by those folk who claim that "fast bass" results from a lighter woofer cone being able to move faster. Can you cite a source for this claim of yours? He can cite me, because I've been hearing this particular piece of weirdness on Usenet forums for over a decade. ;-) However, here are some links, one from people I'd hope knew better: http://www.d-s-t.com.au/caraudio/pdf...ss_sub_xls.pdf www.mtxaudio.eu/IMG/pdf/Leaflet_MTX_2004_uk.pdf Physics says that a lighter cone results from less mass and less mass, according to Sir Issac makes the cone easier to accelerate and decelerate. Whether this results in "faster bass" I don't know because of the other things that come into play such as the design of the speaker's suspension, the strength of the magnetic field and the design of the voice coil and whether or not the voice coil utilizes a shorted turn. |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do we need science in subjective audio "reviewing"?
"What's important to me is being introduced to a product (review) and
for me to be able to evaulate it on my system--everything else is pretty much noise because I'm unlikely to drop big bucks on something that I cannot directly evauluate the delta of on my system previously. It is this dilemma, given the cost, volume, and availability of high end audio that is the most stifling because there is no real suitable model for a consumer to evaulate a piece on their system unless they have a very strong relationship with a retailer (i.e. bought a lot from them previously) and even still, you are locked into what said retailer carries." I hear you, which is why I think the hifi mags. would do us all a great service and drop the "audition" nonsense altogether. Even if they could demonstrate its validity, it is irrelevant information specific only to their specific set of gear and listening context etc.; which lends itself not at all to the listener's own such context. But one suggests they would quickly cease having a reason to exist. If as I think that wire is wire and to a large degree amps and cd players etc. are commodity items with no difference in sonic reproduction of music, then doing blind listening tests and reporting results would soon be redundant and boring. Where would they have to go if some hifi mag. had done the nelson pass / yamaha integrated test showing an audio dealer could not spot the pass amp with which he had long experience in his system using his music? They would have to drop the selling of sonic difference and find other reasons to report introduction of new gear based on technical advances or features and functionality or some such. They would all become stereo review. However the ego hit of replacing hemselves as fonts of extraordinary sonic perception ability would be impossible. |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do we need science in subjective audio "reviewing"?
On Jul 22, 6:23*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
Quickly bringing up the extreme, thoughtless radicals on either side and making them the center of one's contributions to the debate would seem to be an excluded-middle argument. AKA Occam's Razor. Something either is, or it is not. And the thoughtless radicals spend their entire lives believing that for something to be NOT, means that is MUST be its opposite. Those things that are not black therefore must be white. No, the principle of the excluded middle simply states that something that is not black merely need be not black. Accordingly, it could be white. It could also be mocha, puce, mauve, or any of the primaries and many, many other things - just not black. Understand that, and the rules of logic become fairly clear. It is a logical fallacy to attempt to prove the negative, but a single positive does mean that something necessarily "IS". So, if one chooses to believe that something unproven cannot be, (violation of Clarke's First Law - as he has come up before) - then one is living in a world before that thing is shown. A simple Lucifer (self-striking) match would have been black magic in Europe in 800AD, but not in Greece in 100BC where the principles of that particular chemistry were well understood. And Quantum Physics would have been laughed out of court in the time of Newton. Where one is on very shaky ground is attempting to PROVE that something as-yet unproven cannot be. I seem to remember the analogy of the cleared check - I would suggest that the purveyor of that analogy look up the "Nigerian Scam" on the net - and see how that works and how those checks actually *clear* - for a while. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_Final Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do we need science in subjective audio "reviewing"?
"Physics says that a lighter cone results from less mass and less mass,
according to Sir Issac makes the cone easier to accelerate and decelerate. Whether this results in "faster bass" I don't know because of the other things that come into play such as the design of the speaker's suspension, the strength of the magnetic field and the design of the voice coil and whether or not the voice coil utilizes a shorted turn." Of such things is the common sense offered which in fact is counter intuitive to actual audio reproduction. The short version is this, cone mass speaks to the upper limit of the frequency range. If two cones, one having double the mass of the other, are producing 100 hz then all the "speed" needed to produce it is at hand in both and that "speed" is exactly the same for both. |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do we need science in subjective audio "reviewing"?
"Sonnova" wrote in message
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 05:31:58 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "C. Leeds" wrote in message wrote: The kind of failure of common sense and logic you mention is illustrated by those folk who claim that "fast bass" results from a lighter woofer cone being able to move faster. Can you cite a source for this claim of yours? He can cite me, because I've been hearing this particular piece of weirdness on Usenet forums for over a decade. ;-) However, here are some links, one from people I'd hope knew better: http://www.d-s-t.com.au/caraudio/pdf...ss_sub_xls.pdf www.mtxaudio.eu/IMG/pdf/Leaflet_MTX_2004_uk.pdf Physics says that a lighter cone results from less mass and less mass, according to Sir Issac makes the cone easier to accelerate and decelerate. That speaks to mechanical efficiency. Unfortunately speakers are supposed to have an acoustical output. The need to transform energy from mechanical to acoustical has dramatic effects on the situation, to say the least. ;-) Whether this results in "faster bass" I don't know because of the other things that come into play such as the design of the speaker's suspension, the strength of the magnetic field and the design of the voice coil and whether or not the voice coil utilizes a shorted turn. The fallacy of "fast bass" as applied to woofers in multi-way systems is demonstrated by the fact that we almost always drive woofers through electrical networks that are generally the main limitation on their high frequency response. We drive woofers through electrical networks that limit their high frequency response to avoid rough response due to cone breakup and the narrowing of directivity at higher frequencies due to the size of the diaphragm. |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do we need science in subjective audio "reviewing"?
On Jul 22, 10:47 pm, wrote:
"Physics says that a lighter cone results from less mass and less mass, according to Sir Issac makes the cone easier to accelerate and decelerate. And now, how does that translate to the acoustical domain? Most assuredly not in any way that the intuitive lot assumes. Whether this results in "faster bass" I don't know because of the other things that come into play such as the design of the speaker's suspension, Actually, largely irrelevant except on higher order effects. the strength of the magnetic field and the design of the voice coil Which primarily determines efficiency. whether or not the voice coil utilizes a shorted turn." Largely irrelevant. Of such things is the common sense offered which in fact is counter intuitive to actual audio reproduction. Indeed. The short version is this, cone mass speaks to the upper limit of the frequency range. No, it does not: it speaks to the efficiency of the driver. The voice coil current driving comes of two different masses does, indeed, result in two different velocities, but the end result is NOT bandwidth, but output. If two cones, one having double the mass of the other, are producing 100 hz then all the "speed" needed to produce it is at hand in both and that "speed" is exactly the same for both. Well, all other things being equal, the acceleration of the cone is halved, but the net result is NOT a reduction in the transient response, but a reduction in the efficiency. The whole "woofer speed" nonsense COMPLETELY ignores the actual physics of how loudspeakers work. Above resonance, ALL direct-radiator speakers operate in what's called the mass-controlled region. For a given acoustical output level, the accelleration is constant with frequency, resulting in a velocity that goes as the inverse of frequency and an excursion that goes as the inverse square of frequency. The proponents of the "fast woofer" nonsense are fond of misquoting Netwon and claiming "F=ma" without having the faintest idea of what the implications of that and the actual electrical/mechanical/acoustical implications of this are, we end up in the current mess we find ourselves What happens is, essentially, this: the sound pressure level of a speaker is proprtional to the ACCELERATION of the cone. And, since, F=ma or, more properly, a = F/m, then sound pressure level is inversely proportional to the mass. More mass, less sound pressure level. That means, all other things being equal, a heavier cone will simply result ina LERSS EFFICIENT speaker, NOT a "slower" speaker in the sense of reduced transient response. If you want the heavier woofer to "go faster," turn the volume up! Now, one of the real problems lies in the definition of "faster" means. Unfortunately, in this case, it means whatever vague notion the person using the term wants to or thinks it means. What seems to be the common thread, though, encompasses soft-terms like "boominess" or "tight bass." Ironically, all these terms refer NOT to phenomenon that are "fast," implying high-frequency performance, but describe behaviors at the LOW END of the speaker's frequency range, i.e., at the low frequency cutoff of the speaker. Essentially, we're talking about the damping of the speaker and/or enclosure SYSTEM at the fundamental system/enclosure resonance. It's easiest to describe the required behavior for sealed- box, non ported system, and that required behavior simply comes down to the ratio of stored energy to energy dissipative mechanisms, encompassed in a single parameter called the total system Q. Two systems with the same low frequency cutoff and the same system Q WILL have the same "speed:": even if one has a woofer with a cone of 1 gram and the other with a woofer cone of 1 kilogram. They will be decidely different woofers, to be sure, but they WILL have the same transient response. The HIGH FREQUENCY limitations of the driver are NOT a primary result of differences in mass. Rather, they are a very complex function of cone material and composition (which controls stiffness and internal propogation velocity), cone profile, edge termination, flexibility of attachment points and more. In fact, it's often the case that a thicker, heavier cone has BETTER high-frequency response (and, thus is :"faster") because a thicker cone is mechanically stiffer. But, all of these higher-order effects are largely irrelevant for two reasons (actually, essentially the same reason restated slightly differently): 1. Unless incompetently designed, the signal is limited via the crossover to bandwidths LESS THAN the intrinsic bandwidth of the woofer, 2. Regardless of how "fast" a woofer is, it will (or it shouldn't_ ever move faster than the signal driving it, and bass signals are, by fundamental definition, NOT FAST. |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do we need science in subjective audio "reviewing"?
Arny Krueger wrote:
"C. Leeds" wrote in message wrote: The kind of failure of common sense and logic you mention is illustrated by those folk who claim that "fast bass" results from a lighter woofer cone being able to move faster. I asked: Can you cite a source for this claim of yours? Arny sez: He can cite me, because I've been hearing this particular piece of weirdness on Usenet forums for over a decade. ;-) However, here are some links... That's just hearsay. I'm asking for quotes from people who've made the claim. Not links, mind you, but quotes, as called for in r.a.h-e guidelines. |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do we need science in subjective audio "reviewing"?
On Jul 23, 9:26 am, "C. Leeds" wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote: "C. Leeds" wrote in message wrote: The kind of failure of common sense and logic you mention is illustrated by those folk who claim that "fast bass" results from a lighter woofer cone being able to move faster. I asked: Can you cite a source for this claim of yours? Arny sez: He can cite me, because I've been hearing this particular piece of weirdness on Usenet forums for over a decade. ;-) However, here are some links... That's just hearsay. I'm asking for quotes from people who've made the claim. Not links, mind you, but quotes, as called for in r.a.h-e guidelines. Look at the links, the quotes are there. But since you don't seem to be enamored of that logic, try the following from this newsgroup (try doing a search of the newsgroup for "fast bass", it's actually quite easy): Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end From: John Heisch Date: 1995/08/15 Subject: Fast subwoofers? When talking about speakers, "fast" usually refers to transient response. Transient response refers to a speaker diaphragm's ability to respond quickly to any signal change. To reproduce a square wave accurately, a speaker's cone would have to move out instantly, stay there briefly, then move back instantly, etc. No speaker can do this, of course, but the faster a speaker can move in response to a signal, the "faster" it is. Smaller speaker diaphragms typically have less mass and therefore theoretically can change direction faster when called upon to do so. Therefore, subwoofers containing speakers with smaller, lighter diaphragms usually have better transient response. The tradeoff is efficiency. Smaller speakers do not move as much air as larger ones. As always, there's no such thing as a free lunch. Despite its intuitive appeakl, nearly every assertion this poster makes is technically wrong. for example: * To reproduce a square wave accurately requires an infinite bandwidth. * To approximate a square wave whose fundamental is above the system resonance merely requires the cone have constant acceleration in one direction then the other, NOT contant excursion. * Smaller cones have greater efficiency because they have lower mass, but lower efficiency because they have a smaller area. Since area and cone mass are very closely related, the two cancel each other out and, all other things being equal, a small cone has the same efficiency as a large cone. And there are many other examples.: Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end From: (Andr Jute) Date: 1998/01/09 Subject: Why do small speakers sound faster? John, you might consider the mass of a large woofer cone to be moved. It has a certain inertia related to its mass, which has to be accelerated and slowed down again. And, as is common, Jute either ignores or is unaware of the fact that acceleration translates DIRECTLY to efficiency, NOT transient response. There are several hundred other instances, available by typing in less than a dozen letters and hitting the right button. |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do we need science in subjective audio "reviewing"?
"C. Leeds" wrote in message
... Arny Krueger wrote: "C. Leeds" wrote in message wrote: The kind of failure of common sense and logic you mention is illustrated by those folk who claim that "fast bass" results from a lighter woofer cone being able to move faster. I asked: Can you cite a source for this claim of yours? Arny sez: He can cite me, because I've been hearing this particular piece of weirdness on Usenet forums for over a decade. ;-) However, here are some links... That's just hearsay. I'm asking for quotes from people who've made the claim. Not links, mind you, but quotes, as called for in r.a.h-e guidelines. I'm sorry. All the strawmen have died and are no longer available to quote directly! :-) |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
The final nail in the coffin for subjective reviewing ? | Pro Audio | |||
How Sullivan's speaks for "science" without permission. | Audio Opinions | |||
"AKAI", "KURZWEIL", "ROLAND", DVDs and CDs | Audio Opinions |