Problems with believability in audio

[morricab]

You continue to amaze me with your apparent arrogance and disrespect for others who don't tow your little line. Well done. My on topic perspective. I concur with Elliot. You try to quantify an emotional experience and break it up into tiny pseudo intellectual parts. Listening to music is not, at least for me, a lab experiment where the subject manner is dissected under a microscope. It's a flippin hobby meant to provide joy, not mental consternation. Bye.

And you continue to whine and moan rather than contribute in a positive way.

The point of the thread is exactly the thing you are not interested in, so why come on the thread and ruin it for those of us navel gazers who do want to discuss this?? I get it, you just want to enjoy music...so go enjoy music already and stop polluting this thread.

 

[morricab]

^That^ seems largely untrue based upon all the threads with high distortion equipment, and the dearth of distortion specs on the majority of gear… and the fact that almost all of the people will swear upon stacks of bibles, torahs, Qurans, as well as Hindu and Nepalese texts that their systems are “super bitchen”

However I agree with you, and would add compression - which I suppose is also a distortion - as are all the time domain distortions.

Well done sir!

Compression (I am assuming you mean of a speaker and not the recording) is directly related to the perception of dynamics...so, is covered under that "problem" from the article.

 

[morricab]

While you are at it, also avoid good food, exercise, and women.

You will qualify to be a saint

We have to martyr him for the sainthood gig...

 

[morricab]

That’s because you have a tube phono and analog. Go full digital. You need to go all the way

That would be just the martyrdom to get him over the hurdle!

 

[morricab]

I agree with you. In this sense, it doesn’t matter and if a speaker can get that high bar, the speaker doesn’t favor a type of music. But the reality is the most speakers do not hit that high bar, so people make their choices.

His simplified bar doesn't even make sense to me. Which TYPE of speaker design are we talking about? Cones/domes, Planar dipoles, Cone/dome dipoles, horns, omni-directional watermelons? Is one of those in his view "right" and with low distortion and the rest are flawed high distortion designs?

 

[morricab]

^True^
And many people like some types of distortion.


Well that is sort off an all-or-nothing, or black-n-while, good-n-evil polarisation.
People do not come up with new ideas other than by having some hypothesis and then doing som engineering to make test it out.
They are not haunched over a cauldron using magic.


Other than their radiation pattern, which is also a measurable thing these days.
But yeah the speed of sound is relatively “fixed”.

Are different dispersion patterns a type of distortion to you? A dipole, omni, horn and direct radiator will have radically different projection into the room. Is one right and the others distorted? Bose thought the best way was to spray 90% of the sound backwards and only a bit forwards...because that is more like an orchestra (to them).

This is the problem with over simplification that is being attempted here...one man's distortion is another man's attempt to create a different radiation into the room.

 

[hopkins]

This is a fascinating thread. At times amusing (mine’s bigger than yours), or confusing, but fairly thought provoking. I’ll add my $.02.
I spent some time in the mid 80s as an apprentice audio engineer in a performing arts center, recording ensembles large and small and providing amplification for a wide variety of groups. I also go to the symphony regularly so I have a reasonable idea of what that sounds like. I have spent enough on my systems to get to the results I want. Neither of those systems remotely reproduces what I hear at a concert unless we’re talking about a home concert (which we have also hosted).
The audio engineer for a recording is choosing mics based on their voicing characteristics (i.e.Neumann U87 v M50) and purpose (vocal, instrument, venue space,, etc.) location of those mics (piano is excruciatingly difficult to record with authenticity to how it actually sounds).
The audio engineer for amplification is trying to make sure you can actually hear everything while doing their best to not blow out the ears of the performers through monitors, while capturing their instrument authentically (nearly impossible because stage mics are very, very different and narrower in frequency response and sound field from recording mics) so that you get a reasonable sound field.
The speakers for virtually all venues are in mono (not stereo) so all participants hear the mix. Walk around the venue while doing a sound check and you can easily hear the phase cancellations and comb effects in real time.
When i listen to a recording - I do not want to hear it at lifelike volume as that is too loud to actually hear everything the recording engineer was hoping you’d hear. At reasonable volumes, I can hear more subtleties and color. Yes, I certainly don’t enjoy the dynamic contrasts of a life performance - but that makes going to the concert more of a special event.
There are so many variables. The vintage of a recording matters greatly. I find many of the early digital DG recordings particularly bad. They had a mic on every stand so the recordings were flat front to back, and they were often mixed poorly and too bright. Some of the old RCA living color recordings from the late 50s and 60s are marvelous - particularly given the limitations of the technology at the time. Still a bit bright, but closer to what you might hear in a hall but still an interpretation with a dizzying amount of variables.
My point in this is that I’m not really looking to recreate the concert in my room - because I don’t really think you can. You can get closer than I do, but personally, I am looking to take a deeper dive into the music and performance than I can get from a concert. Yes - I hear more detail, more nuance, more of the performance than I can hear in the concert hall. That’s what I want. I go to the concert to hear the mighty dynamics and spontaneity. At home I want to lean in - maybe even dissect the music if I’m unfamiliar with it.
So my goal is not recreating the concert. I want my system to disappear so I’m not listening to my gear, but to the music. Recreating the performance in my listening room to the point of suspending belief? Not close. Pleasing and how I want to hear it? Very close.

I agree with all this, but it is not incompatible with the idea that systems may offer various degrees of realism (sounding "live") - even if none of them come close to the real event.

 

[PeterA]

His simplified bar doesn't even make sense to me. Which TYPE of speaker design are we talking about? Cones/domes, Planar dipoles, Cone/dome dipoles, horns, omni-directional watermelons? Is one of those in his view "right" and with low distortion and the rest are flawed high distortion designs?

His seems to be a theoretical ideal that does not exist. If it did, I would think he would give examples.

 

[bonzo75]

His seems to be a theoretical ideal that does not exist. If it did, I would think he would give examples.

I thought it would be that one speaker type of which many examples exist

 

[PeterA]

I thought it would be that one speaker type of which many examples exist

The premise was reproducing the full audio signal without distortion. I presume that is 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz. Most speakers that go that low and that high have some measurable distortion. It is theoretical unless he provides examples of what speakers he’s talking about.

And you should actually name the speaker type about which you are thinking that meets this criteria. Then we can have a real discussion.

 

[Holmz]

Are different dispersion patterns a type of distortion to you?

No

A dipole, omni, horn and direct radiator will have radically different projection into the room. Is one right and the others distorted? Bose thought the best way was to spray 90% of the sound backwards and only a bit forwards...because that is more like an orchestra (to them).

Right - and if two speakers have identical distortion, say a Bose and something else.
They will sound different.

This is the problem with over simplification that is being attempted here...one man's distortion is another man's attempt to create a different radiation into the room.

They (distortion and radiation pattern) are separate things.

Compress is a frequency response/amplitude distortion.
Group-delay is a timing distortion.
The crossovers can be a timing distortion distortion
^Those things^ can have nothing to do with radiation pattern.

The compression and radiation pattern seem likely have more to do with “believability” than say a driver’s harmonic distortion.

 

[bonzo75]

The premise was reproducing the full audio signal without distortion. I presume that is 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz. Most speakers that go that low and that high have some measurable distortion. It is theoretical unless he provides examples of what speakers he’s talking about.

And you should actually name the speaker type about which you are thinking that meets this criteria. Then we can have a real discussion.

My comment was referencing the fact that he had said majority of horns are not good. So I assumed there is a majority of a type of speaker meeting low distortion criteria

 

[morricab]

No


Right - and if two speakers have identical distortion, say a Bose and something else.
They will sound different.


They (distortion and radiation pattern) are separate things.

Compress is a frequency response/amplitude distortion.
Group-delay is a timing distortion.
The crossovers can be a timing distortion distortion
^Those things^ can have nothing to do with radiation pattern.

The compression and radiation pattern seem likely have more to do with “believability” than say a driver’s harmonic distortion.

Compression is a much bigger problem than most designers will acknowledge. It happens at surprisingly low SPL, especially with lower sensitivity drivers and lossy crossovers.

Crossovers have a big impact on dispersion pattern of the drivers. Ever heard of lobbing?

I agree that compression and radiation pattern will both impact believability significantly and harmonic distortion from the speaker not so much. Earl Geddes did not think that harmonic distortion of compression drivers had any significant impact on perceived sound quality. He felt the horn itself was a much bigger barrier, which is why he came up with his oblate spheroid waveguide/horn to prevent HOMs (High order modes) that cause problems in a lot of other horn types.

 

[PeterA]

My comment was referencing the fact that he had said majority of horns are not good. So I assumed there is a majority of a type of speaker meeting low distortion criteria

Are you referring to sbo6? If so, he does not seem to want to cite specific examples. I wish people would be more explicit when they make claims.

 

[Holmz]

Compression is a much bigger problem than most designers will acknowledge. It happens at surprisingly low SPL, especially with lower sensitivity drivers and lossy crossovers.

We agree.

Crossovers have a big impact on dispersion pattern of the drivers. Ever heard of lobbing?

Once or twice…
And the higher the order of the XO, there is a lot more stored energy.
Maybe the compression also comes into play there?… dunno…
The transcient response generally gets worse.

I agree that compression and radiation pattern will both impact believability significantly and harmonic distortion from the speaker not so much. Earl Geddes did not think that harmonic distortion of compression drivers had any significant impact on perceived sound quality.

Sounds like we’re in agreement with The Earl.

He felt the horn itself was a much bigger barrier, which is why he came up with his oblate spheroid waveguide/horn to prevent HOMs (High order modes) that cause problems in a lot of other horn types.

There are so many tradeoffs for so many reasons, that one needs to pick their poison and hope to have some tolerance for what comes out the other end.

Iocane Holmz

 

[Robh3606]

This implies a coloured system that will make all vocal performances sound like they are here

Not at all it depends on the recording. If it happens all the time OK I can see a case for that but not if it's recording specific.

Rob

 

[bonzo75]

Not at all it depends on the recording. If it happens all the time OK I can see a case for that but not if it's recording specific.

Rob

That’s what I said, the comment I replied to was wishing colouring of the recording

 

[Robh3606]

That’s what I said, the comment I replied to was wishing colouring of the recording

Oh I thought you were commenting on Ron's post that said he uses vocal realism as a yardstick for speaker quality. I agree with him and use vocals as a yardstick. Not all recordings can convey this but the ones that do you can hear this clearly across multiple speaker systems of differing designs.

Rob

 

[Ron Resnick]

Oh I thought you were commenting on Ron's post that said he uses vocal realism as a yardstick for speaker quality. I agree with him and use vocals as a yardstick. Not all recordings can convey this but the ones that do you can hear this clearly across multiple speaker systems of differing designs.

Rob

My use of vocals is actually much narrower than this. I use vocals to evaluate loudspeakers solely with regard to how convincingly they reproduce vocals.

I don't think reproduction of vocals is a yardstick for how convincingly loudspeakers reproduce tympani drums, for example.

 

[Robh3606]

My use of vocals is actually much narrower than this. I use vocals to evaluate loudspeakers solely with regard to how convincingly they reproduce vocals.

I don't think reproduction of vocals is a yardstick for how convincingly loudspeakers reproduce tympani drums, for example.

Of course. I didn't men to imply that was all you used. If I was going for bass extension I don't drop on a soprano. I use a multitude of recordings to make a selection. Vocals a key part of an overall evaluation.

Rob