This is quite recent conclusion, as I sick and tired to do not say it finally!

A loudspeaker must have a volume control that will adjust an amount of HF that a loudspeaker radiates into listening space. I playback systems that has an excessive 1/3 db at HF is unlistenable playback. Period!

So, how came that we can’t not set the correct HF volume and forget about? Well, the people who would ask this question probably never tried. All CD and LP are recorded differently, the audio-quality of power lines and many other factors would easily throw a playback at ”brighter” mode, and sometimes even in “sharper” mode (combinative effect of HF and a few other factors). Therefore the ability to dial-in the HF output very precisely for a given recording or performance (!) is very-very powerful tool that take will take the performance of you playback way out there, particularly in operas and string quarters.

I know, most of the loudspeaker designs do not allow any easy HF attenuations. In this case use what I use with 99% of all homes where I ever heard any audio – go to restroom, grub a few sheet of toilet paper and pat the tweeter with the paper. If you use your tweeter in the correct way – sitting at the transition slop without utilizing any "horizontal" frequency range, then all that you need to do is L-pad the tweeter. However, here is the catch – there are no resistors that would sound good, at least I did not see any. All higher power resistors add some glitz, and I have tried quite a few of them… So, the best scenario in this case is to attenuate the tweeter’s operating at transition slop using variable capacitance (be advised that caps would need ~2-4 weeks to begin sound OK in that application)

If you did go over all these hassle and have set your tweeter at perfect operation point then, ONLY THEN, you would get out of your audio what it actually might do. Then, you will not visit me, surprisingly asking why suddenly my favorite Verdi’s Requiem by Ferenc Fricsay with Berlin Symphony from 1953 sounds in my room so “musical”….

Rgs,
Romy the Cat

Antonio,

The Amati's tweeter and the rest of the similar tweeters are totally out of game form the prospective of my post above. The Amati's tweeters kick in at 2.500 with first order (heavily compensated), it means that those tweeters run the implementations way too compromised for handling HF. In addition the Amati are a typical three-way speaker were unwillingness to use one more driver made the designers to build a low-interest loudspeaker. I do not think that the iris diaphragms might be useful generally for those applications and certainly not with the Amati's type pf the tweeters. In optical system the iris diaphragms are losing this effectiveness when the size of the sources approximate the affective diameter of the diaphragms’ opening. When you use a “single point sources” then the iris diaphragms become completely disabled. I do not even mention the reflections from the back of the diaphragms leaves and the diffraction (propagation of waves to geometric shadows)…. Anyhow, I was referring in my post above only to the tweeters operating at transition slope – the only know to me way to use a tweeter correctly in 4 way installations…

The caT

David@NY wrote:

I believe speakers fall into 2 categories -- to serve personal preference, or to serve content of the source.  If it's designed to serve the content of the source then it shouldn't have any adjustments.  On the other hand, if it's purpose is to serve personal preference then it should be heavily adjustable to suit one's taste.

There are no personal preferences that might be pleased by any complimentary adjustable properties. What I mean: if listeners have civilized and serious reference points then they ALL operate within one unified common denominator of reproductive quality. Pretend that you have an ultimate sound processor that might change any property of sound reproduction without hearting anything else and pretend that 10000 of listeners were asked to adjust with this “ultimate sound processor” sound in order to make the playback to sound in there way they feel it should be. Some very minor group of people after making their adjustments will end up with identical sound, the most approximated to live sound. Ironically, this would be the only group of the people whose opinions and expertise would mean anything. However, the rest of the subjects (I would estimate 98%) will end up with own  “personal different preference” sounds, that would juts reflect their own corrupted references point and their listening immaturity. (This is the major reason why 98% of all playbacks out there suck)

There is another important fact or, that you David, do not took under consideration. The benefits of  “a better playback” might be assessed only in context of real benefits. Under the “real benefits” I mean the benefits of musicality not the benefits of sound reproductive methods. The personal preference might be applicable only in context of those “reproductive differences” and therefore they have nothing to do with real goals of reproduction.

Finally, the “serving the content of the source” is kind of ambiguous concept, as what would be a source? Obviously the recording itself is not “the souse. In fact there is not source at all in a “domain of subjects” and therefore, the “serving” should not be applied to the “content of the source” but rather to the “content of intentions”...

So, a properly used tweeter and a properly implemented tweeter adjuster are do not mean to “set personal preferences” but rather they are the mechanisms to eliminate the pollution of Sound with the contaminates of reproductive methods

Rgs,
Romy the caT

Romy the Cat wrote:

David, welcome . I very much disagree with what are saying. There are no personal preferences that might be pleased by any complimentary adjustable properties. What I mean: if listeners have civilized and serious reference points then they ALL operate within one unified common denominator of reproductive quality. Pretend that you have an ultimate sound processor that might change any property of sound reproduction without hearting anything else and pretend that 10000 of listeners were asked to adjust with this “ultimate sound processor” sound in order to make the playback to sound in there way they feel it should be. Some very minor group of people after making their adjustments will end up with identical sound, the most approximated to live sound. Ironically, this would be the only group of the people whose opinions and expertise would mean anything. However, the rest of the subjects (I would estimate 98%) will end up with own  “personal different preference” sounds, that would juts reflect their own corrupted references point and their listening immaturity. (This is the major reason why 98% of all playbacks out there suck) There is another important fact or, that you David, do not took under consideration. The benefits of  “a better playback” might be assessed only in context of real benefits. Under the “real benefits” I mean the benefits of musicality not the benefits of sound reproductive methods. The personal preference might be applicable only in context of those “reproductive differences” and therefore they have nothing to do with real goals of reproduction. Finally, the “serving the content of the source” is kind of ambiguous concept, as what would be a source? Obviously the recording itself is not “the souse. In fact there is not source at all in a “domain of subjects” and therefore, the “serving” should not be applied to the “content of the source” but rather to the “content of intentions”... So, a properly used tweeter and a properly implemented tweeter adjuster are do not mean to “set personal preferences” but rather they are the mechanisms to eliminate the pollution of Sound with the contaminates of reproductive methods Rgs, Romy the Cat

David@NY wrote:

Maybe I'm not getting what you're trying to say.  Your original post indicated that speakers should allow adjustments to the tweeter volume because the tweeter gives excessive HF.  How can you be certain that it's not the speaker that's producing the excessive HF but your listening space?  I tend to think listening space is often a bigger issue than the speaker itself.

My  “listening space” is quite taken care and sounds as it should sound relevant to the entire room installation and some other variables.  Also, a "listening space" is permanent variable but a contribution of HF into my sound (and as I feel that in anyone else sound) fluctuates quite dramatically. The listening space HF does not fluctuate (with minor exception of humidity and “before rain state” that might be disregarded in most of the cases)

David@NY wrote:

You can say the musicality itself is what should be re-produced, but what/who/how to judge that what you've reproduced is really the musician's and engineer's intent?

Probably the drilling down into the definition of “musicality” would prove further clarification to this question.

Rgs,
Romy the Cat

Romy the Cat wrote:

My  “listening space” is quite taken care and sounds as it should sound relevant to the entire room installation and some other variables.  Also, a "listening space" is permanent variable but a contribution of HF into my sound (and as I feel that in anyone else sound) fluctuates quite dramatically. The listening space HF does not fluctuate (with minor exception of humidity and “before rain state” that might be disregarded in most of the cases)

Romy the Cat wrote:

Probably the drilling down into the definition of “musicality” would prove further clarification to this question.

Yes, centrally it is the speaker, actual not the speaker themselves but rather the speakers along with the entire reproductive chain. As far as the “speakers that doesn't peak at HF”… my do not, some other do not it as well. However the sufficiency of HF are not only the HF issues but also rather the transient characteristics of MF. I have quite capable MF range that allows me do not even go over 12kHz. Still, sometimes, the HF might be too prominent in my setup. When it happens then happens not because I have any “picks” in there but because the listening space juts got over saturated with HF. having the tweeters on the transition slop it is very sample to manage the HF saturation of “listening space” but juts adjusting the crossover point at the slop and do not affect absolutely anything else. BTW, here is an article that you might finer relevant: Beware of "Higher Frequencies Syndrome". Also, I would not see any justifications or reasons to compare the response of a source with a response of miked RTA.It would not say absolutely anything (unless the loudspeakers are objectively faulty and nonlinear) and would not be interpretable, at least as I can see it...

PS: Please read the following follow-up:     http://www.goodsoundclub.com/TreeItem.aspx?PostID=2790

David@NY wrote:

How did you adjust the slope?  By instrument or listening or both?

Rgs,
Romy the Cat

David@NY wrote:

Just from measurement point of view, how do you know if the settings now will accurately reflect what's stored on the medium?

The caT

Romy the Cat wrote:

My objective is to make HF in the way how they should be The caT

Mats,

I have my opinion on the subject of the objective truth of knowledge but it has nothing to do with the subject of HF sufficiency. What I was talking was way more primitive and banal. The acoustic-like concentration and dissipation of HF within a listening space is well-definable and well-detectable by our senses. Any person with a sensible reference point in regards to “live” acoustic sound, with non-corrupted expectations (big rarity in audio) and with an elemental listening intelligence should instantaneously set volume of HF to a CORECT level. (Do not forget that in my case it is even simpler as my HF are the slope’s frequencies and they do not operate with any horizontal response). The real complexity might comes from the fact the HF might mask many other things or be juts wrongly reproduced, that in own turns would affect the level of “subjectively desired HF”… but it would be totally different subject…

Anyhow, the above present attenuator dose juts my tweeters….

Rgs.
The Cat