| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Horn-Loaded Speakers» A single worst thing in today’s acoustic systems. (29 posts, 2 pages)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 2 of 2 (29 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  Beware of "Higher Frequencies Syndrome"...  Beware of "Higher Frequencies Syndrome"....  Audio For Dummies ™  Forum     0  20389  09-04-2005
11-18-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
unicon


Posts 74
Joined on 10-14-2009

Post #: 21
Post ID: 12306
Reply to: 12301
More hf
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Romy the Cat wrote:


our perception has kind of reversed logarithmic scale for tone resolution, so what.
those definitions not bind to our perception
The definitions about theorical sound never bind or help our ears to hear sound
We humans use measurement in second just to measure the wave cycle PATTERN and im aware that in nature they not relative to second But
thats not the point. neither it cant change the biological fact that I sentenced about HF Res.
i can bring a new topic about the biological facts if you are interested.
 Romy the Cat wrote:
but if to look deeper then it is not. Pay attention that we can distinguish 1Hz of frequency shift at 300hz… but ONLY in context of relevancy of those 300Hz to a something else. We cannot differentiate 1Hz as an absolute value. Can we differentiate “A” between 440Hz and 441Hz? Yes we can but can we identify a tone as 441Hz without hearing it referenced to 440Hz? Absolutely not!  A Hertz as an abstract mathematical measurement has no fundamental presence in our perception. What we operate by Hertz scale we operate by just a conventional description of reality.
Thats why i say frequency SHIFT thats how we distiguish. and yes we cant differentiate hz by hz.
so we can hear frequency shift of 1hz or less at 440hz so why not high resolution & clarity MF ?

in my view High Res HF band is benefitical but not necessary


again i direct you to the point i mentioned : ABSENCE OF MF CLARITY & RESOLUTION in MID BAND
i think with high end frequency you are getting far away from the most high-endappalling
 twogoodears wrote:

Interesting would be better learning about the difference, audio-wise, of "transparency" and "resolution".

Being "resolution" a multi-faceted, multi-meaning term, I found this sort-of "dark side of resolution" intriguing and worth reporting, to be added to the SUPERB conversation of the above posts, for which I'm grateful.
yer we getting all off topic but :

high resolution is the high end industrial invention not ours
and i myself can really differ the Clarity vs music resolution

rgs .

11-18-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Saturntube
Posts 24
Joined on 07-08-2005

Post #: 22
Post ID: 12308
Reply to: 12304
HF tweeters
fiogf49gjkf0d
I think hearing loss has to do a little bit with excessive HF in todays loudspeakers, with age this is the freq. that is mainly lost,  so boosting it a little bit helps that... 
Most commercial systems exagerate HF  mainly to make you think they have more resolution boosting HF and lowering upperbass.
The problem with having the technology available to measure your speakers response is that indeed you can make it sound flat and fool yourself to believe that is the correct sound,  when it truly sounds horrible!
The comparison of audio measurements in a concert hall is great,  I will take my RTA next time!
I have a supertweeter that goes up to 45 khz and I think it really helps,  mainly in bass but it also helps in overall transparency,  this ST is 96 db sensitive while my whole playback is 105 db... so it is a lower volume but a difference is noticeable, I cut it at 20 khz (which I cant hear).
I guess real instruments have a lot of extension in different frecuencies and harmonics but at lower volumes,  not clearly listenable and maybe difficult to measure but present anyway, and that is why a Supertweeter is helpful.
11-18-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,638
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 23
Post ID: 12315
Reply to: 12301
The Sound of an Orchestra Expressed in Hz
fiogf49gjkf0d
The discussion of the abstract nature of the elusive "Hertz" reminds me that individuals and orchestras have long tuned to different "Abstract A", in the "first place".  Besides, once you broaden a "tone" into an instrumental "note", all bets are off, anyway.

Not to mention the havoc wrecked by the recording process...

Hell, "playback" itself starts to seem pretty Abstract...

Paul S
11-19-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
twogoodears


Italy
Posts 116
Joined on 03-26-2008

Post #: 24
Post ID: 12320
Reply to: 12315
Life as an anagram...
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Paul S wrote:
The discussion of the abstract nature of the elusive "Hertz" reminds me that individuals and orchestras have long tuned to different "Abstract A", in the "first place".  Besides, once you broaden a "tone" into an instrumental "note", all bets are off, anyway.

Not to mention the havoc wrecked by the recording process...

Hell, "playback" itself starts to seem pretty Abstract...

Paul S


Yes, Paul... you're right, as whole life seems VERY, almost painfully, utterly mysterious as it is all based on abstractions, subtleties, conventions, meanings and habits... when this consciousness happens, it's like something changes and also the humblest word - as the basic brick which builds, supports our lives - need a careful explanation and has its weight in everyday life.

Also: a tuning fork, the basic, humble tool which makes a full orchestra to play "in tune" is - as applied math and acoustic, a sort-of interpretation of Nature and its Laws - giving 440 cycles (hertz) flat to the trained musician ear, who filters the pure tone as "the officially accepted" tuning pitch, by convention... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well_temperament The diapason (tuning fork) is not something abstract, but a vibrating steel bent bar, producing an A=a note... now at 440 hz, centuries ago at 415 hz, tomorrow... who know?

BTW... did you notice that "tone" has - by chance - one of its anagrams as "note"?  




"Use your ears as your eyes" - Gertrude Stein

Stefano
11-19-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,115
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 25
Post ID: 12321
Reply to: 12320
The tunning frequency
fiogf49gjkf0d
 twogoodears wrote:
Also: a tuning fork, the basic, humble tool which makes a full orchestra to play "in tune" is - as applied math and acoustic, a sort-of interpretation of Nature and its Laws - giving 440 cycles (hertz) flat to the trained musician ear, who filters the pure tone as "the officially accepted" tuning pitch, by convention... The diapason (tuning fork) is not something abstract, but a vibrating steel bent bar, producing an A=a note... now at 440 hz, centuries ago at 415 hz, tomorrow... who know?
 Actually it not juts centuries ago, today or tomorrow. Even now you can tune any orchestra or any instilment to any a pitch, would it be 440 cycles, 417 cycles or 465 cycles. Higher or lower A note give some arguable advantages to different music and different playing style but the most or the time it serves as a conventions to musicians to be in tune. His is all off the topic of this thread. There is a remote subject how playback moderated the tuning frequency – the subject that never discussed in audio but it would be also way not related to this thread. 

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
11-19-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
el`Ol
Posts 225
Joined on 10-13-2007

Post #: 26
Post ID: 12322
Reply to: 12276
Independence of position
fiogf49gjkf0d
What they all can´t do:
Give an instrument/vocalist exactly the same size, focus and "substance", no matter where in the stereo panorama it/he/she is located. I do not even speak about total realism of these aspects, just about their independence from position.
11-19-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,115
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 27
Post ID: 12325
Reply to: 12322
I would not exactly agree.
fiogf49gjkf0d
 el`Ol wrote:
What they all can´t do: Give an instrument/vocalist exactly the same size, focus and "substance", no matter where in the stereo panorama it/he/she is located. I do not even speak about total realism of these aspects, just about their independence from position.
The giving to an “instrument/vocalist exactly the same size, focus and substance” is a noble task itself but it is not the animate goal of sound reproduction. We value the “size, focus and substance” juts because we feel that it is easily quantifiable categories and we believe that by mimicking it in the same way how it was during live musical event it would be some kind an assurance that we reproduce music “properly”. It is false assumption, or put in this way it is not necessary correct assumption. The “size, focus and substance” are external evidence of sound. Yes, most of acoustic systems can´t do but to peruse ONLY for “size, focus and substance” give only externals or superficial satisfaction from sound. My claim would be following: if an acoustic system properly handles the “thin” moments of Sound then the way how it does the “size, focus and substance” become less relevant or even irrelevant. Think about a pencil sketch. A talented artist would be able with a dozen of lines to draw a portrait that would be more characteristic then a full blown oil painting. The very same is with a playback. A good acoustic system shall not impersonate attributes of live sound but rather shall capture the essence of musical metaphors ™. If in addition of this very primary but completely neglected by Audio Morons duty a playback is able to take care about all of those “size, focus and substance” moments then it is not a good playback but a phenomenally good playback…

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
11-19-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
noviygera


Chicago, IL
Posts 177
Joined on 06-12-2009

Post #: 28
Post ID: 12327
Reply to: 12276
I don't know why everyone has a "wrong" opinion on this, so correct me if I'm wrong.
fiogf49gjkf0d
The answer is dynamic balance.  It's objectively easy to prove too. Let's say you are in a room behind a closed door. In the other room is a musician playing an instrument. Even an easier example -- a person talking in the other room. You know that it's for real.

It's not because the imaging is good. Not because the soundstage is good. Not be cause the bass response or HF is good. All that make no difference to the real thing.  AND to music reproduction. Imaging, soundstage, HF, midbass, midrange, bass, clearness -- neither is the SINGLE and THE MOST APPALLING quality of today’s high-end audio loudspeakers. Because they have no relationship with reality.
Now let's see what HAS the relationship to reality.

Let's see: behind a closed door, a live instrument, a live sound, a live voice. Let's not SEE, let's HEAR Smile
We hear definition, attack and decay, we hear timbre, and most importantly we hear a CONTINUOUS EVENNESS in definition, attack and decay, and timbre over the entire freq. range of the sound. Of the voice, of the instrument and music.
That's what makes it real. An EVEN definition from top to bottom. But to state it bluntly I called it dynamic balance. Today’s high-end audio loudspeakers, yesterdays loudspeakers have had this inferiority to REAL sound. The "sharpness", the attack and decay, the "dynamics" are varying with respect to frequency. "Mids are smooth, highs are transparent" what a bunch of BS. It's the evenness of each attack and decay with respect to the attack and decay of every other frequency that the speaker system can reproduce. Another way to put it "transient response" cannot vary with respect to frequency.

That's how you know the voice or instrument behind the door is real.

Herman.
11-19-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,115
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 29
Post ID: 12328
Reply to: 12327
The playback generally or acoustic systems?
fiogf49gjkf0d


Herman, good post, but I think you are knocking into a wrong door. Let take it step by step.

 noviygera wrote:
The answer is dynamic balance.  It's objectively easy to prove too. Let's say you are in a room behind a closed door. In the other room is a musician playing an instrument. Even an easier example -- a person talking in the other room. You know that it's for real.

This is a classic “the second floor piano example”: you walk down a street and hear a piano playing on the second floor with a window opened. You do recognize immediately that the piano is real or a recording.  The question is how do you know? You suggest that it is by dynamic balance. I am not sure.

 noviygera wrote:
Let's see: behind a closed door, a live instrument, a live sound, a live voice. Let's not SEE, let's HEAR We hear definition, attack and decay, we hear timbre, and most importantly we hear a CONTINUOUS EVENNESS in definition, attack and decay, and timbre over the entire freq. range of the sound. Of the voice, of the instrument and music.  That's what makes it real. An EVEN definition from top to bottom. But to state it bluntly I called it dynamic balance.

Here is where I am not sure that I agree. I would agree that “definition, attack and decay, and timbre” is in live music and in the recordings is different over the entire frequency range but I am not sure that if shall be CONTINUOUS EVENNESS and identical for all frequencies and for all dynamic ranges. I have written about it many times including the AMI article

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?postID=12186

I do feel that there is a pattern how harmonics need to be changed with respect to frequency range and volume but I would more attribute to amplification not to the acoustic systems. BTW, the AMI conception is trying to deal with it inclusively….

 noviygera wrote:
Today’s high-end audio loudspeakers, yesterdays loudspeakers have had this inferiority to REAL sound. The "sharpness", the attack and decay, the "dynamics" are varying with respect to frequency. "Mids are smooth, highs are transparent" what a bunch of BS. It's the evenness of each attack and decay with respect to the attack and decay of every other frequency that the speaker system can reproduce. Another way to put it "transient response" cannot vary with respect to frequency.

Herman, how methodologically, subjectively of objectively, you recognize that it is necessary the evenness? I think it would be a good idea to know HOW it shall be. Live sound is not a constant and it’s “definition, attack and decay, and timbre” wary upon many different conditions, so I am not sure that it need to be CONTINUOUS EVENNESS, I think there is more to it than just the “continuous evenness”.

Anyhow, what you describe is probably a single worst thing in playback generally but it is not specifically relates to acoustic systems.

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Page 2 of 2 (29 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  Beware of "Higher Frequencies Syndrome"...  Beware of "Higher Frequencies Syndrome"....  Audio For Dummies ™  Forum     0  20389  09-04-2005
Home Page  |  Last 24Hours  | Search  |  SiteMap  | Questions or Problems | Copyright Note
The content of all messages within the Forums Copyright © by authors of the posts