GoodSoundClub - Romy the Cat's Audio Site

Audio For Dummies ™
Topic: Well said

Page 1 of 1 (17 items)

Posted by haralanov on 09-15-2012

I'm really amazed how many people do not understand the concept of wider frequency extension toward the HFs. I frequently read comments from different people who state that nobody hears above 18-19-20kHz, and they make stupid moronic conclusions that it is absolutely worthless to have tweeters capable of reproducing anything over 20-22kHz. Their empty heads do not understand that the wider frequency range is needed not to reproduce anything over 20k, but to reproduce the frequency range they are able to hear with CORRECT PHASE, mostly below 14-15kHz!
The more the extension the tweeter, the less the phase error BELOW 14-15-16kHz!

frequency vs phase.JPG

The situation with the output transformers is absolutely the same. An OPT with -3dB point at 200kHz has much less phase error below 20kHz than an OPT with -3dB point at 20kHz, and because of this, it will sound much better if everything else being equal.

Posted by Paul S on 09-15-2012
fiogf49gjkf0d OK, now you have to keep going, because from this alone one "comes to the conclusion" that the tweeter to use is the one that goes way up there, like the "diamond" or Be, etc. So, now you have to tell us to find wide-range paper tweeters that run with the bats! Best regards, Paul S

Posted by haralanov on 09-15-2012

Yes, Paul, you are right that it has to be pointed that the frequency extension, by itself, does not guarantee anything (but that’s why I posted the thread in Audio For Dummies section :-) ). OK, now let’s see how the tweeters should be used (in context of more or less serious installations). The working range of a real HF driver should be over 8-10kHz. It is real stupidity for somebody to use his HF driver, having a size of a fingerprint, as low as 1,5-2kHz. All those 25-30mm domes run out of energy well above 5-6-7kHz, despite they produce SPL much lower. Energy is not equal to SPL. One cannot reproduce midrange with funny sized driver and even the mid IQ morons know that. So when we define the working range of a given HF channel, we look higher than 9-10kHz. It is important to be mentioned that it is the crossover frequency, not the limits of the tweeter.
Now the morons, who have their audio IQ above the average level, are going to think they still can use their diamond, be or ceramic tweeters successfully if they use them above 10k. Well, it is not so simple. To reproduce anything above 10k correctly, one needs a HF channel which is able to work lower. Otherwise it cannot blend with the upper midrange (reproduced by other channel) in a convincing enough way and below the crossover point it will sound as the last accords of the following trombone player: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oe41VbsQdpQ (just like the 5 inch “bass” drivers “reproduce” LFs :-) ). I will not explain it further, despite there is a lot for explaining, but I will only mention one needs a diaphragm with at least 4-5 times the size of a conventional tweeter in order to reproduce the last octave correctly. So, Paul, the last sentence of your post is very correct.

Many, if not all, of the so called super tweeters are out of the game, because they are only able to produce UHF noise, but not Sound in the range where the human ear is still sensitive. The morons are still using them to reproduce UHF noise and they destroy the sound of their systems (there are zillions of brainless threads about that across the internet).

But the thread actually is not about the tweeters. It is for the morons who don’t understand the REAL need of having UHF capable tweeters (and again – it is the correct phase in the audible working range of the HF device).

Posted by Romy the Cat on 09-15-2012

Haralanov,

Yes and no. Of cause no one would deny the benefits of ULF reproduction but the key questions would be: 1) what kind of reproduction? 2) how to talk about it?

There is no language to convey the ULF message. The 20K repose is meaningless and it is not -3dB as any other frequencies but in the best case minus 12dB, with great fluctuation from sirloin specific local conditions. Then there is “what kind” of ULF. I do feel that if a playback can’t furnish a good quality of 20K and above then it is much better do not make an attempt to go for 20K. With proper quality of let say 12.5K a playback might be very musical and perfectly usable. Would it make sense to get 2-3 octaves above? Sure but if the playback can handle it. This is very much as in case with ULF: of you can’t do 20Hz properly than stop at 40Hz and do not go to the dangers LF territory that will compromise your midbass and lover MF.
The phase response of course it critical but I do feel that it is mostly the subject of electronics. With acoustic systems in real rooms we have very ruined phase response at 20Hz. Trey to reconstruct any more or less reasonable pulse from a tweeter at the microphone installed at the listening position. It is very very questionable.

Yes, a twitter that starts from 2K as most of the dome metal tweeters are is very problematic but I have to admit that they are a bit “no” from conceptual perspective but they are well listenable in real world. A tweeter starting at 10K is very different topology of the whole acoustic system and I would even propose that this type of the tweeter can’t not be used by the people who do not know what they do (95% of folks in audio).

I personally feel that the above 10K tweeter have to be sold as an assembly along with MF drivers, I do not see anybody market such tandems.

The Cat

Posted by haralanov on 09-16-2012

Romy, it is of course "yes and no" situation. I thought it will be understood by presumption and it doesn’t need to be mentioned at all (but since it is Audio for Dummies section – it seems it needs to be mentioned :-) ). So - Yes - if it is done right (very low probability) and No – when is it not done right (very high probability). The human brain very easily compensates what is missing in the recordings and usually it takes just a few minutes for this process to begin/happen. But it is very difficult for it to correct the wrong sound having a lot of defects. It tries to make phycho-acoustical filters that minimize the mistakes of the bad sound reproduction, they are relatively effective, but all it comes at the price of listening at Defense Mode. This mode is characterized by restricting and even shrinking down the boundaries of the human consciousness, thus reducing the ability of the brain to get the message of the music being played. When the hearing is out Defense Mode, the consciousness expands and there are no limits (I’m talking about playback system’s related limits) for the perception of music, but of course this ability is different for the different people. So of course if the UHF is not done in the right way – it better be missing.

Romy the Cat wrote:

I personally feel that the above 10K tweeter have to be sold as an assembly along with MF drivers, I do not see anybody market such tandems.

Yes, this is very correct – the HF and MF drivers have to be made by the same concept and they should share the same topology. The more their topologies differ from each other, the worse the reproduced sound is, especially with faster roll off crossovers. Too bad the industry doesn’t care about that, but on the other hand – who cares about the industry? :-) I personally don’t care that the industry doesn’t care about me or for the people with my way of thinking. The serious audio is not a game for multiple players, so everybody should find the solution of this problem for himself...

Posted by Paul S on 09-16-2012

Something else too obvious to mention (yet mentioned here...) is that the tweeter works better if it is also +/- "balanced" against the LF. Broadly speaking, it is partly this "balance" (combined with the brain's ability to fill in "missing" information) that "explains" the Musical advantages of the "good" table radio over most FR audiophile speakers!

Patient readers might segue to the "Implied Audio" thread...

Paul S

Posted by Jorge on 09-16-2012

it comes at the price of listening at Defense Mode. This mode is characterized by restricting and even shrinking down the boundaries of human consciousness, thus reducing the ability of the brain to get the message of the music being played. When hearing is out of Defense Mode, consciousness expands and there are no limits (I’m talking about playback system’s related limits) for the perception of music

Wonderfully explained Haralanov!

Posted by rowuk on 09-16-2012

Harlanov,
I would be interested in an explanation why the topology for HF and UHF must be the same. I do not agree with this premise especially in 4 or 5 way systems where primarily the last octave only is demanded. Here there are only overtones (mostly starting with the 5th or 6th overtone of the highest pitched instuments), there is no "speed" issue. The demands (power, dispersion) are considerably different in this range. The energy in the UHF audio range is relatively low level, its presence in live music is except for brass instruments very diffuse (Flutes and violins radiate vertically, many percussion instruments omnidirectionally.
My experience is that fine ribbons and magnetostats can be favorably blended with other technologies. I personally use a second magnetostat behind the speaker angled to reflect off of the back wall and ceiling to add this dimension to my playback. Because of the distance to the rear wall/ceiling, the reflected UHF arrives at the listening position well out of the early reflection time (>15ms) and therefore messes nothing else up.
Arguments about higher order crossovers with no context of the application are difficult to comment on. The higher order crossovers for UHF are only necessary when power handling is the primary issue, when the driver has a problem with resonance - that would disqualify its use anyway or when specific efforts are being made to control lobing (which could be simply necessary when the speakers are being used in the very near field).
In any case, it is not "dumb" to consider sound reproduction a process with very individual parameters based on the listeners familiarity with real instruments, technical background, audio expectations and willingness to experiment. Just because some audiophile claims "superior tone" or "absolute rules" does not make their personal preferences fact. It is very interesting to note that the engineers that create our favorite recordings generally do not use systems that many audiophiles would even consider "adequate". I think this is a fact that you should consider before claiming anything "absolute". Somehow those people are getting superior sonic results with no subjectivity...................
I had a recording session last week in a studio in Frankfurt, Germany. They were using some big Genelec monitors that did an admirable job in spite of a mix of direct radiators, domes and waveguides. It is NEVER the gun that makes the kill, it is he who pulls the trigger. We are not victims of the industry. Serious audio like anything else serious is available to all, but only achieved by the anal rententive fanatic. That does not mean that those few are the only ones enjoying music. In many cases ignorance is bliss and I often envy the listener that can get so caught up in the music that the warts do not matter.

Posted by haralanov on 09-16-2012

rowuk wrote:
I would be interested in an explanation why the topology for HF and UHF must be the same. I do not agree with this premise especially in 4 or 5 way systems where primarily the last octave only is demanded.

Rowuk, nobody wrote HF and UHF. If you read again, you will see Romy and I wrote HF and MF, which is very different subject. Anyway, in context of what you wrote – you are right – the UHF driver is not necessarily to have the same topology as the HF driver. Actually it doesn’t matter how it “sounds” if crossed above 20kHz. The only real world requirement is the absence of ultrasonic resonances, which can modulate the hearable range of the audio spectrum. No UHF driver can improve the sound of a bad sounding HF driver, regardless the amount of the wishful thinking one has in that direction. Similarly, no tweeter can improve the sound of a bad sounding MF/widerange driver, especially in terms of transient deficiency or openness of the sound window. Actually any properly sounding HF driver does not need super tweeter support.

rowuk wrote:
I personally use a second magnetostat behind the speaker angled to reflect off of the back wall and ceiling to add this dimension to my playback.

This is a multifaceted subject that deserves a separate thread, because it is important. If you recognize deficiency of back/upper dimensions of the “recreated” sound field, then the problem needs very different solution than just using speakers creating reflections in your room for more “spaciousness”. What you are trying to do is to make your brain believe there is more realistic recreation of the recording’s original acoustic environment, but in fact what you do is to lower the contrast (sound difference) between the different recordings. Think why it is so.

rowuk wrote:
Just because some audiophile claims "superior tone" or "absolute rules" does not make their personal preferences fact.

Rowuk, it has nothing to do with the personal preferences (taste of the listener). There is no room for personal preferences in serious audio. Also I have witnessed with my own ears a lot of installations claimed to have “superior tone” that are no more than a bag full of shits (sorry for the term). I personally do not trust anybody claiming to have superior tone without hearing how his system sounds in reality.

rowuk wrote:
It is very interesting to note that the engineers that create our favorite recordings generally do not use systems that many audiophiles would even consider "adequate". I think this is a fact that you should consider before claiming anything "absolute". Somehow those people are getting superior sonic results with no subjectivity...................

I really don’t understand the connection of what I wrote in this thread with the sonic results somebody somewhere gets in a given studio. In most studios they have notoriously crappy and dead sound with very low contrast between the different recordings. Not to mention the fact it is highly unlikely to find a studio where they have successfully recreated the atmosphere of the recording.

rowuk wrote:
It is NEVER the gun that makes the kill, it is he who pulls the trigger.

Yes, you are very correct by saying that, but still the man who pulls the trigger needs to have high quality drivers. His task is to use them in the most creative possible way, but if he doesn’t have good drivers, the game is over and he can’t kill any bird/dog/deer/you name it. One can cry, one can pray, but it is the naked truth. The question is what he can do about it!

rowuk wrote:
In many cases ignorance is bliss and I often envy the listener that can get so caught up in the music that the warts do not matter.

I can successfully get caught up in the music even with my build-into the laptop speakers or any crappy and disgusting sounding so called “audiophile” speakers. But I don’t see what this “ignorance is bliss” has to do with this thread.

Posted by Romy the Cat on 09-17-2012

Well, this concept of Defense Mode is good for superficial explanation (or for selling to ourselves own justifications) and I use to use it in past but I do not use it for a few years as unfortunately it is not what it is. The correction of “the wrong sound” is certainly is taking place but the “wrong sound” does not encompass all explanation as within that definition of “wrong sounds” there is a whole array of specific problems. There are attributes of “wrong sound” that mind is accustomed to deal with, there are attributes that might be very easy to dealt with phycho-acoustical filters of perception and there are some “wrong sounds” that our brain juts has no defense as the type of “wrong sounds” that playback produce does not exists in nature (vibration subject in air) and therefore our hearing and perception juts does not know how to interpret it. Furthermore, dealing with “wrong sounds” and utilization of “override” mechanism in the Defense Mode trends to be individual thing and it is very difficult to bring any universal rule into it. I made many experiment with different listeners and I concluded that the explanation like “restricting and even shrinking down the boundaries of the human consciousness, thus reducing the ability of the brain to get the message of the music being played” is a wonderful explanation only for the people who subscribe that explanation. I certainly do but I would not legislate in my personal preference and would not declare it as some kind universal rule.
I do not insist that MF, HF, or UHF topology has to be the same. I insist that they have to produce the same type of sound that not necessarily derived from the same topology. It not even has to be the same sound but rather the sonic results have to be coordinated. Generally audio people do not ether understand or have no ability to manage the coordination of the individual drivers (particularly at HF) and therefore it would be nice if some manufactures would take care of it, if manufactures can do it of cause.

The higher order crossovers are a complicated subject. I disagree that it is subject of power handling. No one care about power handling as in home playback we do not use more powers then we need to do what we need. crossovers order Is for sure is an expressive tool and it needs to be viewed in context of everything else, particularly in context of given tweeter topology.

Haralanov said:” No UHF driver can improve the sound of a bad sounding HF driver, regardless the amount of the wishful thinking one has in that direction”. That is very interesting comment. For sure we do not need to use “bad sounding HF drivers” that has ultrasonic resonances (most of them so) but can we acoustically (in air) damp the ultrasonic resonances with another ultrasonic injection from another driver. I do not have answer but it would be interesting to experiment. Haralanov claims that it is impossible but I have no experience with it to accept it or deny it. I for sure will not experiment with it personally as my tweeters do not go over 19K, so I continue my life in sonic deprivation and restricted listening consciousness. The concept is interesting however….

Ignorance is bliss? This is a complicated subject, very complicated. Ignorance is a subordinate of a person being more or less informed. I made many experiment with listeners who were perfectly happy with sound. Then I informed them about some ill specifics in that perfect sound. As the result then develop very predictable “Defense Mode” toward to those specifics. Then I addressed the cause of the specifics and the people felt that “Hallelujah” effect. Then I introduced them with another specifics and the game started again. It is interesting that if you have uninformed person with restricted listening intelligence (I mean playback of cause) then you can have a “perfect sound” (means the problem with sound do not exceed then person ability to understand the problem), than you intestinally introduce some huge problem in Sound and the person very much might not even acknowledge that something was changed. I have seen it again and again and in some instances even I had become the subject of that behavior. Understanding of ourselves and our relationship with Sound is what high-end audio is all about. Of cause it is only in my view and some people might feel that audio is an art of soldering, adjusting the high of cable elevators or rewinding the capacitors foil…

BTW, if you pay attention that the industry very much use that informity/satisfaction patter and I have been beaching about it for years. Distribution of goods in industry is made by sponsoring review and for years and years industry employs the institution of writing retard who pre-develop faulty informity in public in order to introduce to market a new audio product that would address that faulty artificial informity. It happed in US since idiot-Regan administration. Before 70s US marketing recognized the people needs and delivered the goods to address the needs. Since then they flipped the operation upside down and introduce that grotesque concept when industry will produce whatever is profitable and marketing will shape the needs of consumer into order to navigate their need to the crap that was profitable to manufacture. As a result we have a nation that does not recognize own need, has no sensibility and only has a habit to navigate itself from one in-boxed product to another product.

It might look like my detest of American marketing has very little to do with audio but it is the manifestation of the concept of informity and awareness that very much play role during listening and activation of Defense Mode. But I need to shut up as Amy told that word “uninformed” is a derogatory word in US vocabulary, so I am shunting up to keep a piece in the family…

Rgs,
Romy the Cat

Posted by haralanov on 09-17-2012

Romy, it was a good comment.

Romy the Cat wrote:
It is interesting that if you have uninformed person with restricted listening intelligence (I mean playback of cause) then you can have a “perfect sound” (means the problem with sound do not exceed then person ability to understand the problem), than you intestinally introduce some huge problem in Sound and the person very much might not even acknowledge that something was changed.

Exactly!

Romy the Cat wrote:
I do not insist that MF, HF, or UHF topology has to be the same. I insist that they have to produce the same type of sound that not necessarily derived from the same topology. It not even has to be the same sound but rather the sonic results have to be coordinated.

Interesting. I have never heard two different topologies to have the same type of sound. May be it is due to my lack of enough experience, I don't know. Can you bring me an example?

Posted by Romy the Cat on 09-17-2012

The notion of coordination in MF & HF tandem is very important. I do not even think that they need to be the same. If the MF and HF drivers have the same topology then they still are not the “same”. A HF will be much smaller with smaller and lighter diagraph, exposed to completely different air damping pressure or whatever else damping they use. The VC are different, with different capacitance, inductively, mass and breaking patterns. I never seen anybody claim that they made HF driver in identical way to HF. So, what would it be identical? Well, I think identical would be if MF and HF driver have the same static and dynamic TTH characteristic at low and high currents:

http://www.GoodSoundClub.com/TreeItem.aspx?PostID=5874

Shall it assume the identical topology? Well, if a helicopter and automobile travel with the same speed than does it mean that they rely upon the identical propulsion topology?

We all agree that MF and HF shall sound the same but I do not pretend that I know how topology relates to sound. I do not build drivers but use the existing driver. I very much do not that that the manufacturers who build drivers know how topology relates to Sound as I am pretty sure that that juts render the well-known know-how and get sound as it happens. I think viola, trombones and harpsichord makers build their products to get specific sound. Audio makers, in particularly the drivers manufactures do not do it.

So, what I mean by coordination? I mean that the driver have to produce sounds that have similar “feel”. I do not know any better way to do it then my “sit down” test that I have been employing with Macondo for over 10 years. There is no way to measure it or to approach it from any other known to me perspective.

Sure, there ARE some topological contradiction. Get paper MF and try to integer it with ion tweeter? Good luck with that but I would argue that the problem in that case was not topological but rather the problem with sonic output. The difference in topology of cause is the key in THAT example but acknowledging a difference in topology does not provide any useful or self-educational answers.

The Cat

Posted by rowuk on 09-17-2012

The discussion of topology is interesting, but what in fact are we addressing? The factors that have been mentioned are:

1) Sound, which in this case seems to be dependent on "either you get it" - or don't
2) Topology, which in my experience has so many facets that it explains very little about what reaches the listeners ears
3) Geometry of the recording (where does what sound come from) which could be documented at the time of recording and used as a template for reproduction later
4) awareness of the listener to what they hear - a constant process that mandates that we never will hear the same thing, the same way twice!
5) effects of electricity. This amazes me because power regeneration is no mystery and must be solvable - even at amplifier level!
6) power handling which may not be significant in home applications, but DOES influence the construction of the drivers used. More power handling capability will "change" the sound of a driver as the heat must be dissipated somehow (heavier voice coil, more gap, metal VC former....)

This is all interesting, but how does it fit into the process of helping audio dummies? Perhaps we can look at some of the integration issues like Romy mentions with paper MF and Ion tweeter and his sit down test, maybe we need to address distortion and how a multi way system that has a driver per decade cannot have appreciable levels of anything except 2nd or 3rd harmonic distortion. In fact, tweeters with no "fundementals" to reproduce or subwoofers with no "harmonics" should be EASIER to get right - assuming that the passband is of sufficient quality. Maybe a lot of what we hear is in fact the dispersion of the HF/MF/LF system and the accompanying room effects. Maybe a lot of what Romy or Harlanov hear is determined by what they have conditioned themselves hear in a specific way? Maybe we are all victims of our own "conditioning" and need to address this first?

What IS amazing to me is the fact that there ARE very fine recordings out there created with "not approved" studio monitors and sub-standard electricity and amplification. Perhaps those engineers are in fact, artists and find "the Sound" without the special attention that seems to be necessary later in the consumer chain.

These concepts are very difficult to put into perspective as the line between love of music and love of the improvement process can but not must be mutually exclusive. One thing that I have learned here is that at the end of the day (week, month....), if you can't enjoy the fruits of your efforts, you are the real dummy.

Posted by Paul S on 09-17-2012

Most here are probably familiar with the fact that A/B "blind tests" were popular in the early days of "audio", where listeners seemingly could not distinguish between live sounds and electronic "counterparts" issuing from behind a curtain. Today we think of the tinny playback of yesteryear and laugh at this notion, just as we gladly submit to the idea of higher fidelity in our own times. Still, it is mostly the brain finding a wormhole that leads us to musical bliss via hi-fi. And if this is true, then the only quetion for any Music Lover is, how to do it.

As far as the sound from drivers past or present, from UHF on down, there is (or can be) more to choosing sound from one versus the other than comparing frequency response charts. For myself, I like drivers that let me clearly recognize and distinguish between instruments and voices in terms of pitch, timbre and expression, from individuals and groups alike. And yes, I realize that I am (myself) part of this process. As far as topology goes, only certain fairly fragile paper drivers do the "speaker part" "well enough" to use them as a starting point, up to the point where they crap out. I have long used a naked ribbon cut in at 13k, 2nd order, and while it actually does "air" very nicely, some issues remain in terms instrumental "voicing", at least to my ears. And from experience, I believe that the audible problems I hear are due to a lack of "suitable" extension from my (paper) tweeter (as opposed to my ribbon). Based on experience, I would say that the ribbon should not be expected to make any "timbre", at all. Basically, it was likewise with electrostatic "UHF" arrays that I used in the past. While it is true that it is results we are (or should be) after, it certainly seems to be a fact that some drivers "do better than others" at rendering certain "facets" of musical performances, at least as far as my own ears and "brain" are concerned. For me, all roads do NOT lead to Rome, and mixing topologies, while "theoretically possible", might make for some rough going, along the road to Rome.

For all the speculation about recording techniques and record production, most record producers are mostly concerned with levels at any given time, and the systems they use to make the recordings are mostly about giving them control over levels of pieces and parts of the "production", which they subsequently mix down into an affordable version of what happened during the session (or sessions). And the "funny" thing is, the record that is made from the session master is often quite different from the session(s). In fact, this is often by design and intent, alike. So, where does this leave us, in terms of "fooling the brain"?

Romy likes to point out that it takes special attention to fool the brain in terms of Bruckner, and I agree with this, wholeheartedly. On the other hand, my wife will not stay in the room with Bruckner, under any circumstances. I suspect that this is so because this music simply overloads her brain, sounding to her as "noise", and I am sure all of us have had this reaction to "music" of a given ilk, at one time or another. As for myself, I have sought to parlay my experience to [re]create in my home music I can enjoy live, and I at least TRY to offer up and enjoy in my home the same aural cues I enjoy during live performances. In fact, for years I may well have had a better "success rate" listening at home than I have at live concerts, partly owing to where I live, and partly because of the attention I have paid to offering to myself what it is I want to hear in the first place.

How much of a performance is one ready to hear at any given time? The answer to this might shed some light on how to approach UHF.

Paul S

Posted by Romy the Cat on 09-18-2012

rowuk wrote:
Maybe a lot of what Romy or Harlanov hear is determined by what they have conditioned themselves hear in a specific way? Maybe we are all victims of our own "conditioning" and need to address this first?
What IS amazing to me is the fact that there ARE very fine recordings out there created with "not approved" studio monitors and sub-standard electricity and amplification. Perhaps those engineers are in fact, artists and find "the Sound" without the special attention that seems to be necessary later in the consumer chain.

These concepts are very difficult to put into perspective as the line between love of music and love of the improvement process can but not must be mutually exclusive. One thing that I have learned here is that at the end of the day (week, month....), if you can't enjoy the fruits of your efforts, you are the real dummy.

Rowuk, I am bit surprised that you took it in this way. Of cause what we are taking in context of this thread and in context of this entire site has to do explicitly with that process of sound reproduction. I feel there is absolutely no need as soon as we hit some kind of conceptual bottleneck of sound reproduction ideas to raise a with flag and switch to conversations about love of music. If you are individual who research pushing envelop ways to produce female cosmetics than I do not think that it would help your research if you claim that if woman is being loved then there is no need for her to improve her skin as her “imperfections” would not bother the person who love her. Even the argument is perfectly valid but this argument would not advance you in your journey to advance cosmetics. So, your ideas of alleged mutually exclusiveness between “loving of music” and improvement process of music reproduction do not really reflect in what I feel about audio. For sure it might be true and it is true with most of audio people but the basic presumption, at least at my blog, is that this mutually exclusiveness has been resolved in the minds of my site readers. I have written about it a lot on past you might look for old posts.

I do not know what the relationship Haralanov has with music but it is a subject at all. The point that Haralanov pitched has nothing to do with music and what he said does not mean that anything that does not comply with what he proposed is “bad sound” or prohibitive sound reproduction. The whole point is how to get “more” from the media we use, and in our case our media is not trumpets, pianos or harps but amplifiers, loudspeakers and turntables. Go to see the string players who pay $20K for some vintage bows and who can be engaged in years of collaborations on the subject how that particular bow could or could not advance them to play with this given playing style. It is no different between us and audio. We do explore possibilities and opportunities that audio opens to us as we engage different audio ideas in order to advance our, oh yeas, interest in music. I think this is kind of going without saying…

So, that “conditioning ourselves hear in a specific way” is not a problem of any kind but rather the mandatory input parameter of that entire operation. We do not hear music in any specific way but we do have advanced listening skills to be able to recognize and to assess how minute idiosyncrasies of sound reproduction paradigm impact out music listening experiences. From this perspective what Haralanov propose is as valid as anything else, regardless agree you and me with his observations or not.

Posted by rowuk on 09-18-2012

Romy,
I am equally surprised as my post was not intended as a flag or criticism of Haralanovs or your listening habits, rather to mention that our "conditioning" may have more to do with our perception than the technological parameters that "feed" that "condition". Here we are in complete agreement that the PROCESS is key to advancement of any kind. Inspiration can be found in other concepts however and they can involve hardware, mood, family, job or many other things - perhaps even from bad audio.
In this case we have phase shift at UHF a qualifying for moronic behaviour. I think that I get more phase shift than mentioned above at UHF when I move my head 1-2cm when breathing. I would be very interested in how this idea could be tested where phase shift is the only change. I am not sure how this can be related to tone or being a dummy.
My opinions are based on my personal situation and can only serve as food for discussion. I am sorry if my previous post was not clear.

Posted by Paul S on 09-18-2012

Robin, what you say about shifting your head while listening is very interesting in the context of this thread, since I happen to know that one of Haralnov's primary goals is the elimination of the tweeter (or any driver, for that matter) as a "source of sound". I can also say that putting the working parts of his thinking into play has resulted in sound that varies little around quite a large "listening area", if this is of interest to you.

As for the "phase issues", I confess that I tend to give only passing acknowledgement to these "principals" as I pursue "Better Sound" via hardware, including extended HF. However, I have said before (and I say again now) that "add-on tweeter" is an oxymoron, whether it is phase or topology, or whatever that "causes" the problems. Based on experience, until I hear otherwise, there is no doubt in my mind that elaborate networks are best avoided, including at "UHF"; and it has also proven true that running a "suitable" "tweeter" up sounds better than running a "super tweeter" down, albeit there must be "sufficient" overlap.

BTW, of course no one who reads these posts is a Moron! ;> Wink

)

Best regards,
Paul S

Page 1 of 1 (17 items)