| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Playback Listening » Basic guide to advanced audio (63 posts, 4 pages)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 1 of 3 (63 items) Select Pages:  1 2 3 »
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  About Boiling Micro Response...  Complex and incredibly interesting?...  Playback Listening  Forum     2  20890  10-05-2010
  »  New  About the Audio Neutrality...  Taking neutral when/where one can get it...  Playback Listening  Forum     12  75411  03-31-2007
  »  New  How to evaluate playback... or the Six-Leveled-Listenin..  Introduction to Level #2 - the Dynamic Level...  Playback Listening  Forum     3  51109  06-12-2004
  »  New  Macondo's Axioms: Horn-loaded acoustic systems..  No wonder...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     72  403897  07-29-2007
  »  New  About speakers Imbedded Macro-Positioning...  Big room AEZ...  Playback Listening  Forum     15  131203  05-16-2007
07-23-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Jorge
Austin TX
Posts 137
Joined on 10-17-2010

Post #: 1
Post ID: 16696
Reply to: 16696
Basic guide to advanced audio
fiogf49gjkf0d

Romy,  I have been trying to explain to myself what happened and how I got to it and trying to recreate this wonderful boiling point.

I tried to make a write up of all the steps needed in order to make it happen,  but it is ever so elusive.
 I do have notes on the gea I was suing but several changes have been made since then, that I am confident will eventually help me on the way.

Any way I want to share this in case anyone has got to it or part of it so we can find a more  scientific way to make it happen.


Basic guide to advanced audio

Several stages of performance can be observed in a music reproduction system: Perfect resolution, Sphere like soundstage, Harmonizing effect and Boiling point.  These effects are achievable one after the other on your sound system and will help convert a good performance into a moving, even life changing event without having to leave your listening room.  I will try, to the best of my knowledge to describe these points as detailed as possible, trying to keep the thread of what we are talking about, sound reproduction, and not stray into electronics or equipment setting.

Perfect Resolution

The first step of the way to achieve is a Prefect Resolution of the recorded material. This in itself is what this hobby, art form and industry has been all about if we take away the ego buys.

Of course achieving this is no easy task, but a seasoned audiophile should have perfect ability to do so and can get to this point, mostly if we start talking about sound reproduction and stop talking about equipment as an isolated object in a fetishist way.

The first big barrier to cross is to get rid of the big mess and terrible reproduction at the upper bass level.  The most complicated range of music is here, where most instruments have their fundamental frequencies.  This range has to be solved perfectly to bring transparency to the whole spectrum of listening.  Most setups without a specific channel for this frequency sound cluttered and obscure; Imagine there are high and mid frequencies spiking up and down, but  a flat line of some sort at around  300- 200 hz,  sound just doesn’t seem to go past this flat line,  so you get chopped up instruments going up high,  then a big mess at 300 hz,  and then big thumping disconnected bass from 100 hz down,  but it is hard for an instrument to pass that barrier and go cleanly all the way through,  down to the lowest ranges of listening.   Once you get rid of this barrier, instruments just come to life with much more power and punch, even at lower listening levels; this is what brings in that reality feeling!  Bass being totally integrated with the mid range in one sphere like sound. Yes even a violin sounds fuller with a clean response down to 20 hertz.

Even within a perfect resolution there are still levels.  You can get this complete instrument effect, easily with a single driver speaker, and I guess this is why they have so much popularity, but I would not say getting the complete instrument effect will bring in perfect resolution; for this you need to have the frequency extremes perfectly solved and to be able to reproduce more than one instrument. 

I will call a Perfect Resolution of a system when you can be able to play a full orchestra at real life volume levels without even a glitch in reproduction, no small distortions anywhere in the spectrum, no saturation of any level not bass dragging around, good dynamics at each and every frequency, with perfect macro and micro detail resolution. 

When the instruments sound like real full instruments perfectly delineated and existing in their own space and you can pin point each one of them in the sound stage.

Sphere like Soundstage

Here is where things start getting more complicated, to achieve this you need to measure the response of your system, an RTA is completely necessary if you didn’t have it already. Also you need to have each channel of your speakers independently wired so you can connect and disconnect it and also be able to modify the volume it is playing at.

This ritual I am about to describe will become part of your setting of a system and unluckily needs to be done often, when a new piece of gear is introduced or when the effect starts to wear out.

The first thing to do is disconnect one side of your play back and concentrate on the other.   Disconnect all the drivers and measure only the response of the tweeter. Then disconnect the tweeter and measure just the response of the midrange, the upper bass, and whatever channels you have individually.  Adjust the volume of each one to get the same volume out of every channel. 

You will notice when you start getting under 200 hz big bass peaks and valleys in response appear, this is your room playing tricks on you. There is no easy way to fix this, go ahead and push all the EQ buttons you want, you will just kill sound, but do it because it is good to recognize what dead sound is, and because you will of course not believe me when I tell you that all the electronic gear and digital xovers and room equalizers are useless.  Spend as much time and money as you wish.  Eventually you will come to realize that the only solution to the bass room modes is speaker positioning and volume levels of the different channels you have playing under 200 hz, and learning to accept what you cannot change.

After you are done measuring and adjusting both sides your system will sound like shit. 

This is where your training and culture play a roll, all those nights at the concert hall, all those piano lessons, the live events you have listened to; all will become part of how your system sounds. The rest of the adjusting has to be done by ear, this is the detail of it and the devil is in the details.

A completely flat system sounds horrible, depending on your room acoustics and your tastes the volume of each channel, either mono or stereo has to be very slightly readjusted, adjustments of half a db are in place, if you need to adjust too much, it means the measuring will be lost and you will need to start the whole process again.

For this we are already talking about a well set up system with no TV in the middle and with the speakers perfectly positioned and equidistant from the sweet spot.

When everything is in place and al the volumes are perfectly set. You will need to check this 2 points that are off in almost every system I have listened too:

 Most probably you will need to lower the highs, most tweeters are set with too much volume because of a cultural mistake,  we have learned to listen and enjoy the sparkle on top of the instruments,  like a foam on top of everything,  tweeters don’t need to call the attention of your ear, tweeters need to disappear and form part of the instrument midrange,  they need to fill in the response of the instrument at the higher levels where the midrange driver cannot go,  but don’t ever be present,  this will kill the reality feeling and destroy the sphere like soundstage.

Lower bass say from 50 hz under depending on your channels, will probably be too high. Again we have been taught by the industry that bass is good and that punchy sound is what we need, I have seen subwoofers in good systems dragged all across the Swan Lake. Subwoofers are there to disappear, to never be heard and just complete the instrument´s lower registers, without calling any attention to them.  But also they are there to bring out the shine of an orchestra when the crescendo is in full.  This is where big dynamics of the subwoofers are needed and this is where they usually can’t perform, the horn channels will be jumping up and down but the bass channels won’t be able to keep up, so one is  tempted to raise the volume, do not do it: when the crescendo is over the bass will be ever present.  The problem is not the volume but the poor dynamic response of the bass channel and it should be addressed this way.  I order to fix this you need to either add more bass speakers, more transducer area, or make one of those huge Bass horns.

These two points could be part of a Perfect Resolution, but be certain that if this is not addressed; the Sphere Like soundstage will not appear properly. Somehow miss adjusted channels break through the sphere and pop the bubble.  The sound shall be of an extended midrange without the crisp highs and the ever present lows. 

When all this is achieved the sound stage of your system will gradually begin to increase, instruments will be pin pointed in the space and the midrange will acquire a beautiful fullness, a roundness that will keep growing and on certain recordings you will eventually form a Sphere like Soundstage, where the sides of your soundstage will grow so much and the deepness of the soundstage will be so that the instruments are detached perfectly from the speakers and form a sphere right in front of you.

Again there are levels for this and some systems with better gear and more attention to set up will sound better, will give a fuller sphere soundstage with more ease and with better micro detail of the instruments.  Bigger rooms will of course have a bigger soundstage and are capable of withholding higher volume levels.

To get to this point you already need a speaker system that allows each driver to be adjusted independently, and at least a geometric visual time alignment of the drivers is needed, a separate amplifier for the bass is a requirement too, in order to be able to manage bass response. Be clear, if any of these points are missing from your system you will not be able to get the effect.

Harmonizing Effect

This is very difficult to achieve, I have managed to get there just a few times, and if any adjustment or change of gear is introduced in the system, the effect will be lost and you will need to readjust everything.  

Things start to get to a point here where recipes are not easy to give and will not even ensure success.  But some basic points must be established that are definitely needed to achieve this.

 I have never been able to get the Harmonizing effect without multiamping.   Biamping has already been established as needed for the prior point, being multiamping very useful.  For the harmonizing effect biamping won’t be enough no matter how perfectly set each speaker volume is, you could probably share one amp for two speakers with very similar response,  but one amp per speaker is the best bet.   

The minimal adjustment of volume levels for each driver is so perfectly needed that any contraption being Lpads, speaker level volume controls or even wire gauge adjustments will not bring in the response level we need. 

Time Alignment is a must.  For this level you need to have each driver of your speaker system, of course wired independently, but also physically detached from the others in order to be able to slide it forward and backwards until it snaps into place.

The ritual described above has to be conducted again, but this time with another purpose in mind: to time align each driver on your speakers.  This process has been described before in some Altec literature and on some expert websites.   You will have to play a tone at the frequency where the driver´s cross over is set at: for example 500hz.  You connect only the 2 drivers we are measuring and invert the cables on one of them. Then play the tone at the crossover point, 500 hz: and you slide the driver you are adjusting until the SPL meter shows a dip in the response at that frequency.  This has to be done on all of the drivers on both sides of your speakers.

Once everything is reconnected and the system is sounding again a seemingly endless micro volume adjustment of each driver is performed while listening to music.  Again your cultural baggage will play the most important roll on deciding which volume to adjust a how much higher or lower. 

Brick by brick is layered of micro adjustments until the volume and the tone on each instrument all along its frequency range are set in order to give it a full image.  Place the image of a violin on your head and imagine it is distorted, if the lower registers are too high, the figure of the violin will be distorted on the bottom, with a big flatulent ass.  You have to lower the volume of that driver to give the violin in your head the perfect size, shape and tone.  This has to be done for every instrument in the orchestra. 

If your reference recording, the music you are playing in order to set all the volumes right, is a girl with guitar, you will not have a clear vision of the sound of each channel you are trying to adjust and so you will be blind in most frequency ranges.  Try to adjust the shape of a violin drawing if you cannot see parts of it.  This is why our system needs to be able to play a full orchestra and why our reference recording cannot be simpler music.   If there are no instruments playing on each and every frequency range then we have no “visual” reference present in order to adjust the volume on each speaker driver.

That being said I usually play female voices after all the volumes have been readjusted just to check the response with a more familiar sound, but never readjust volumes then.  It should not be needed The voice will sound perfect and jump out at you beautifully.

With every micro level adjustment the Harmonizing Effect will be more and more present and it will be noticeable.   In the beginning of a concert or when the pianissimo is playing with few instruments you will not notice anything different, but when all the instruments come together the sound will vibrate outside the speakers with this beautiful tone in a resonating sphere like soundstage and you will be unable to leave your seating position! 

Boiling Point

This is extremely difficult to achieve, I have only got it once by accident and another time by careful approach, and lost it soon after because of unneeded re adjustments.

It is also very difficult to explain if you have never listened to it.  Above is a narration of it I made when I accidentally got it:

Going back at this narration it explains all of the above points I have been achieving one by one in order to eventually start a boiling point.  How it is done, by magically readjusting everything in an already perfectly set up system!

You can have your system on the Harmonizing effect most of the time,  but only on certain recordings and on a given day when maybe the electricity is better and your senses are relaxed the system might begin to explode in such a way.

07-23-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,540
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 2
Post ID: 16699
Reply to: 16696
Interesting thinking
fiogf49gjkf0d
I put this post into a separate thread as I think it has own values. There are a number of very interning thoughts in there as well as there are some moment that I would not agree. I think the key is that everyone who practices more or less sensible audio shall put in writing similar to what Jorge did. The most interesting aspect of the Jorge’s article is that he introduces his effects as achievables that are available ONE AFTER THE OTHER. This is very strong argument in my view and I hope the reders will not miss it from Jorge’s article.

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
07-24-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
twogoodears


Italy
Posts 116
Joined on 03-26-2008

Post #: 3
Post ID: 16700
Reply to: 16699
A major achievment...
fiogf49gjkf0d
... in explaining "the" audio and music and listening art... thanks, Jorge and Roman.


"Use your ears as your eyes" - Gertrude Stein

Stefano
07-24-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
N-set
Gdansk, Poland
Posts 454
Joined on 01-07-2006

Post #: 4
Post ID: 16707
Reply to: 16699
Moments
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Romy the Cat wrote:
I put this post into a separate thread as I think it has own values. There are a number of very interning thoughts in there as well as there are some moment that I would not agree. [...]


Would be quite interesting to hear at what moments you don't agree.
Confronting different views may lead to something.




Cheers,
Jarek
07-24-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,540
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 5
Post ID: 16710
Reply to: 16707
And what would be YOUR views?
fiogf49gjkf0d
 N-set wrote:
 Romy the Cat wrote:
I put this post into a separate thread as I think it has own values. There are a number of very interning thoughts in there as well as there are some moment that I would not agree. [...]
Would be quite interesting to hear at what moments you don't agree.
Confronting different views may lead to something.



"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
07-25-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
N-set
Gdansk, Poland
Posts 454
Joined on 01-07-2006

Post #: 6
Post ID: 16711
Reply to: 16710
Too early
fiogf49gjkf0d
I'm an early adept of the art.
There was no cynism in my question, just pure
and natural curiosity.




Cheers,
Jarek
07-25-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
haralanov


Bulgaria
Posts 130
Joined on 05-20-2008

Post #: 7
Post ID: 16717
Reply to: 16696
How black is the black
fiogf49gjkf0d
Jorge, good post, but I think you have made generalization:
 Jorge wrote:
A completely flat system sounds horrible
My comment may look too simplistic, but it is not. The frequency response is not self contained entity, because it shows the energy balance of the Sound. So you can have flat energy balance of good Sound and you can have flat energy balance of bad sound. In both cases the sound is different, but the energy balance is the same - paradox? That is important. On the other hand, if you have irregularities of the frequency response (the so called peaks/dips) they put their own accents in the sound, so they give fake intonation when reproducing some of the notes, which destroys the original musical interpretation to some degree. So they modify the performer’s intentions in their own way. The algorithm of modifying is always the same (for a given system), no matter what the recording is. It is the same as adding sugar to everything you eat, even when you go to a fine restaurant – when you add sugar to your meal, there is no way to understand how the cooker wanted this meal to taste, so you can not understand his original intentions. It is directly related to the transparency of the original musical messages - just how unaffected you (OK, not you, but your system) can reproduce (recreate) them.
 
 Jorge wrote:
tweeters don’t need to call the attention of your ear, tweeters need to disappear and form part of the instrument midrange,  they need to fill in the response of the instrument at the higher levels where the midrange driver cannot go,  but don’t ever be present,  this will kill the reality feeling and destroy the sphere like soundstage.
 
The sound shall be of an extended midrange without the crisp highs and the ever present lows. 
It is certainly very very important, but how many systems you have listened where you can not be able to recognize the HFs as disconnected part of the sound? I just wanted to ask if you have ever heard a system, where the sound of the tweeter is COMPLETELY part of the midrange. I know there are a lot of people who insist they integrated their tweeters perfectly, but when I visit those people, I can always identify the sound of their tweeters. When we talk of channel integration, we must be able to identify the axis where the sound comes from without hearing any parasitic sounds coming from over or under that axis. Most of the systems I have heard have their sound fixed at the tweeter axis. Yes, they sound integrated, you can even listen them at 1m away without hearing any integration artifacts, but they do not sound like seamless extended midrange - they rather sound like seamless extended HFs. Everything have taste of high frequencies, even when the level of the tweeter is not set to be higher that necessary. One of the most difficult things in audio (actually it is the most difficult of all) is to make the sound to come from the midrange channel axis, which have to "pull" the sound of the tweeter and to mix it perfectly within itself. It may take a lifetime to do this right, and sometimes lifetime is not enough… But once it is done right, most of the psychoacoustic barriers get crashed, so there is no bridge between you and the music, and the music content of the recordings injects directly in your mind, so directly, that you totally forget who you are and your mind becomes just part of the music and you even begin to feel you are composer of the reproduced music.
 
Best regards,
Haralanov


"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." -A.E.
07-25-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,540
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 8
Post ID: 16718
Reply to: 16717
It is not about "what" but about "how".
fiogf49gjkf0d

 haralanov wrote:
My comment may look too simplistic, but it is not. The frequency response is not self contained entity, because it shows the energy balance of the Sound. So you can have flat energy balance of good Sound and you can have flat energy balance of bad sound. In both cases the sound is different, but the energy balance is the same - paradox? That is important. On the other hand, if you have irregularities of the frequency response (the so called peaks/dips) they put their own accents in the sound, so they give fake intonation when reproducing some of the notes, which destroys the original musical interpretation to some degree. So they modify the performer’s intentions in their own way. The algorithm of modifying is always the same (for a given system), no matter what the recording is. It is the same as adding sugar to everything you eat, even when you go to a fine restaurant – when you add sugar to your meal, there is no way to understand how the cooker wanted this meal to taste, so you can not understand his original intentions. It is directly related to the transparency of the original musical messages - just how unaffected you (OK, not you, but your system) can reproduce (recreate) them.
I would not agree with Jorge observation that completely flat system sounds horrible and only partially agree with haralanov’s suggestion that there is a difference between response and energy. Sure there is a difference but I think the Jorge’s slightly incorrect treatment the definition of “flat system” made haralanov to argue the point that it might estimation is irrelevant.

First of all let me to state that I made many many many many many experiments with listening and messing and I always came to the very same observation: with proper measuring the flat response is always preferable, not even preferable but significantly better. However, there is a lot of more to it and that “a lot of more” very much moderates the validity of the above.

First of all: we, to a degree, do not recognize with our awareness the unevenness of response. I mean we recognize it but we do not register it as something destructive that is preventing us to listen music. The destruction comes from phase anomalies not from amplitude. In most of the cases, again to a degree, we are not distracted by amplitude deviations but we distracted by the mechanisms that caused the amplitude anomalies.  If the mechanisms that caused the amplitude anomalies are in phase, have the same TTH characteristic  and the same natural reproduction nature then those amplitude anomalies might be whatever they are – they are in your way.  Hearing very easy and very painfully adapts to any natural amplitude anomalies. Haralanov of cause is very correct about his “sugar to your meal” explanation but I would add: “depends of what kind of sugar” as the sourced of food sweetness (amplitude anomalies) is the key. In one case you might have +10dB over octave, in phase and with identical TTH and it is will be hardly affecting anything. In another case you might have +.5dB over octave, with phase mismatch or with sharper TTH and it will make sound hardly listenable. So, it is not about amplitude but the way how this wrong amplitude comes to existence.

Second: flatness of response is not a goal but just an abstract base. It is like an orchestra needs to be tuned to oboe’s “A”. No one define what the “A” shall be an different orchestras tuned to “A” that is +/- 10-15Hz, sill to maintain the proper relationship to instruments, instrumental groups and even to play intentionally unturned  the played need to know where the “A” is. So, the flatness is not necessary but the system owner and the channels must know where the flatness is. Again, my experience indicates that with proper TTH balance the flatter response is always much more preferable.

Rgs,
Romy 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
07-25-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Jorge
Austin TX
Posts 137
Joined on 10-17-2010

Post #: 9
Post ID: 16719
Reply to: 16717
Tweeter Integration
fiogf49gjkf0d
Hello Haralanov,

It is hard to talk about sound, and define points: this is why the post is so long.

Most systems I have lisitened to that measure a flat response have exagerated high frequencies and usually the midbass is a little shy,  this might be room dependant.  Most measurements outside my own listening room have been with company, and we all agree.  This is why the owner of the system must readjust levels to his liking:  there is no point in listening to a flat system if you do no like the sound!

All these effects I am trying to describe, cannot be achieved just by automatic measuring,  It would be great if that was possible!

The first point I try to describe as Perfect Resolution,  should part from a system with good flat sound even though a little off, and not any huge peaks/dips.  My system is +- 3db from 120 hz up. I have a small dip at 100 hz and a huge peak at 50 hz on one side. 

I always hated tweeters,  my intrusion into horns was done in order to be able to use a compression driver up high and never look at a tweeter again,  I was wrong,  the best you can do about tweeters is deal with them the best you can:  I believe my system is seamlessly integrated most of the time, I have a close friend with a very good playback that lowers his tweeters everytime I visit,  he is in his 60s and his high range hearing has declined a little, but for everything else he has a wonderful ear:

In order to give the correct credit for things;  The first time I listened to all of these effects was at Romys old place,  a few months before the move.
Needless to say I was overwelmed by the sound and could not grasp every effect I was listening at.  I took me a couple of years of playing with my own system to start disecting some of what I heard.  This write up is a memory of what I have noticed along the way.  Yes his system has the Seamless Integrated Midrange,  my system had it too at the time, and it was a nice surprise to find the same.  All else I had never listened to!

With that sound in mind I started to drop all of the psychoacoustic barriers I could and started getting forward! 

It seems you have achieved by yourself  what I can only describe as the Sphere like soundtage:

"One of the most difficult things in audio (actually it is the most difficult of all) is to make the sound to come from the midrange channel axis, which have to "pull" the sound of the tweeter and to mix it perfectly within itself. It may take a lifetime to do this right, and sometimes lifetime is not enough… But once it is done right, most of the psychoacoustic barriers get crashed, so there is no bridge between you and the music, and the music content of the recordings injects directly in your mind, so directly, that you totally forget who you are and your mind becomes just part of the music and you even begin to feel you are composer of the reproduced music."

Yes this is what I am talking about and I am so glad you relate!

Maybe you even have the Harmonizing effect going on:  When you play, say Mozart or Vivaldi, and all the instruments come toghether on the chorus in harmony,  this harmonious sound sort of escapes the speakers and fill up the room,  you can almost cut it with a knife!  When I was at Romys place he played a piece with a lot of disonances,  I think it was Wagner;  The effect was gone,  he noticed I was upset, so we commented that this greeat harmonic sound coming from the speakers was gone... 

This I have managed in my room not as often as I would like, but in order to get to the next effect; Audio Boiling Point, your system needs to be harmonizing continually. 

Now there are still levels of playback even at this very hard to achieve points.  Like when you play a good Master dub on RTR tape, and then play a crummy CD on a 20 yeard old DAC in the same system.  The effects are there, but not with the same resolution and detail.  Lets say all the insturments are perefectly delineated, but the violins on one system sound like yamaha violins and on the other all of them sound like Stradivarius.
But please dont come to me yelling you get this sound on a single driver BLH!

This is Romys Original descrption of the Micro Boiling response ( I think some mistake happened, because its not there anymore,  it was great)

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?postID=14658#14658

This is my descrption of the time I got to it accidentally:

"There is a very scarce effect in nature I will try to explain, a sort of sense explosion.  One of this happens sometimes in food tasting.

When you have a very tasty, very good cheese and you take a couple of bites and it grabs your tongue and its good, and you sort of get numb of all the strong taste, after that you take just a tip of a spoon of say orange marmalade and all of a sudden there is this taste explosion in your mouth, the cheese combines in a wonderful way with the sweet of the marmalade and maybe the acid of the orange and your taste buds vibrate.  This happened to me just the other day for the first time with wine and food at a good friends house,  we were having some good wine, very nice but not really special, when we sat for dinner,  very good ravioli pasta with fresh tomatoes and basil with a wonderful simple salad, when I tasted the wine again this explosion of the spices combining with the wine flavor and alcohol was there, everyone at the table experienced the same thing. 

It just happened to me with audio, I had hooked up a wonderful JBL 2490 driver to a 120 hz horn and was playing around with all the channels volumes and Xover points trying to make a cone speaker in a horn sound like the JBL driver, I kept getting up from my chair and rearranging the volume here and there and going back to listen until I noticed, it sounds good here, then all of the instruments sort of receded into one midrange sound, the extension sort of disappeared the highs were not present, they were there, but not evident, not shouting in your face, the bass seemed to be gone, it was not dragging around like a lot of systems I have heard, what is left is an Extended Midrange sound, I imagine it like Spherical, when the midrange is the center and the highs and lows are the poles, they are still there but part of a whole and only jump at you when they are called in,  what is left is instruments resonating on all their chords and harmonics, vivid instruments just jumping out of the speakers.  If we use the same Spherical analogy, you can visualize looking thruogh a lens and seeing evrything more clearly, but not bloated.

I got this just on one side of my playback, where the cone driver is, the side with the JBL driver  is not explosive, it is not boiling,  It does sound very nice, dynamic extended transparent any reviewers mumbo jumbo apply, but it is not explosive. I am pretty sure it is mainly because it is not time aligned,  the JBL driver was and add on to an existing system and in order to make the throat of the horn smaller, some inches were added to the length and thus it is not aligned with the other drivers…. Such a ptiy!  The components are there, the Nitroglycerin, the Gun powder  the TNT, are mixed in waiting for the spark, but not aligned properly for the explosion sequence. 

 I was lucky enough to listen to Romys old system before the move, the  system was in continual explosion, like a nuclear power plant just waiting to be excited by the music.   It was the first time I ever heard such effect in audio,  the boiling micro response, he describes it perfectly, I am just relating it to other senses, food, so it can  be comprehended, it is so rare and it has such a force that I do believe it transcends the barrier of the senses…

I will take very careful measurements and notes of the set up in order to be able to keep it sounding,  try to get the other channel to do it, and hopefully someday reproduce it again if it is lost!
"


Jorge
07-25-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,540
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 10
Post ID: 16720
Reply to: 16719
Strange. Restored.
fiogf49gjkf0d

 Jorge wrote:
This is Romys Original descrption of the Micro Boiling response ( I think some mistake happened, because its not there anymore,  it was great)

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?postID=14658#14658

Indeed it was strange. The Micro Boiling response was overwritten with Jorge’s text from this thread. I have no idea how it happened but my log indicated that it was done my …me on July 23. Still, I have no idea how and why. Anyhow, I have restored the original post from the Micro Boiling thread from the database backup.

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
07-26-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,540
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 11
Post ID: 16721
Reply to: 16717
Mind Injection, audio and ...HF?
fiogf49gjkf0d

 haralanov wrote:
It is certainly very very important, but how many systems you have listened where you can not be able to recognize the HFs as disconnected part of the sound? I just wanted to ask if you have ever heard a system, where the sound of the tweeter is COMPLETELY part of the midrange. I know there are a lot of people who insist they integrated their tweeters perfectly, but when I visit those people, I can always identify the sound of their tweeters. When we talk of channel integration, we must be able to identify the axis where the sound comes from without hearing any parasitic sounds coming from over or under that axis. Most of the systems I have heard have their sound fixed at the tweeter axis. Yes, they sound integrated, you can even listen them at 1m away without hearing any integration artifacts, but they do not sound like seamless extended midrange - they rather sound like seamless extended HFs. Everything have taste of high frequencies, even when the level of the tweeter is not set to be higher that necessary. One of the most difficult things in audio (actually it is the most difficult of all) is to make the sound to come from the midrange channel axis, which have to "pull" the sound of the tweeter and to mix it perfectly within itself. It may take a lifetime to do this right, and sometimes lifetime is not enough… But once it is done right, most of the psychoacoustic barriers get crashed, so there is no bridge between you and the music, and the music content of the recordings injects directly in your mind, so directly, that you totally forget who you are and your mind becomes just part of the music and you even begin to feel you are composer of the reproduced music.

Yes, and no. The Mind Injection is certainly there and your run for the state of listener to become a composer of the played music is fine but why suddenly it has to have any direct association with HF? The art of tweaking listeners mind is a complicated process of electro, acoustic and psychological alchemy and the proper setting of HF is only one, very small and very significant ingredient. It is like for a person who fasts for 30 days to admit the he abstain from eating pork kindly. If one does not eat any food then what deference it makes that the person does not eat kindly?

If you look at the Jorge’s hierarchical scale then the relationship with tweeter lives at the very first level that he call “Perfect Resolution “ or at my level of Six-Leveled-Listening Benefits it would be the very first “Static perception”:

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?postID=50#50

For sure HF reproductions is difficult in audio, there are reasons for it but I think in context of this there the meaning of HF a bit exaggerated. BTW, if you would like to hear really good HF reproduced by playback then try a good gramophone with somebody who knows how to play 78s properly. There you will get HF that you will remember for very long time.

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
07-26-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,148
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 12
Post ID: 16722
Reply to: 16721
The Matrix
fiogf49gjkf0d

Hmmm...  Thorny, difficult topic...

The "integration" of HF certainly involves its "disappearance" - as "HF", as such - "into the soundfield". At the very least, Tone ultimately depends on this.  But there also appear to be other benefits from "getting this right".  These benefits involve a sort of "burst" effect, where the soundfield "pops open" in a way that I cannot describe at this time, but I believe this is at least part of what Haralanov refers to.  For want of better words, despite that English is my "First Language", the effect might be understood as "psycho-acoustic", since the integration of "dynamics" and tonal saturation make distinguishing the two difficult - or "unimportant" - under these circumstances.  Likewise, the idea of Image (singular) and Images ("plural") disappears as a mental "consideration" under these circumstances.  Naturally, the Total Effect requires not only "HF integration" but also "LF integration", which may partly explain why the Effect is so arresting when it occurs (ie, we are not "used to it" happening with hi-fi).  However, the Effect as Haralanov describes can be approached (and explored) by degrees without ULF, as one approaches "correct" tonal saturation, including "HF integration", and given "acceptable" alignment, etc. to support it.  While this might be explored with well-chosen "generic" paper drivers, the limits of the drivers will most certainly be tested (and probably exceeded) during the course of related experiments, as the Effect is made manifest.

To expand, once again, we are NOT talking single drivers here, although part of the aim is to capitalize and build considerably on a "similar" effect  through driver matching and integration, with the end game being the facilitating of a repeatable and sustainable "Matrix"/teleportation effect.

The above considerations are deliberately generic, and of course I cannot at this point address the effects of Exposure and Time on the Effect, since it is too new to me, in terms of hi-fi implementation of it, anyway.

With respect to "HF", I am beginning to wonder if it might be "reverse engineered", from the ground, up, if that makes sense, since lower MF and down is where all the real force has to be, and upper MF is where most hi-fi means to succeed, but doesn't.  In other words, the typical "appended tweeter" is an oxy-moron.

Paul S

07-29-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
haralanov


Bulgaria
Posts 130
Joined on 05-20-2008

Post #: 13
Post ID: 16730
Reply to: 16721
Tweeters and the size of the audio window
fiogf49gjkf0d
I have witnessed how a person who mostly listen music at first listening level, suddenly starts to talk not about sound, but about performer’s playing techniques when listened to a system with properly integrated HFs. That’s why I exaggerated their meaning. There is a catch when I’m saying properly integrated HFs. It is not so difficult to make an acoustic system where the output of the tweeter is mixed up with the sound of the other channels, but I personally look for different kind of integration – an integration that does not deform the sound field geometry and size. It is much difficult to achieve than just perfect sound integration. Before I describe the specific aspects, I will illustrate a simple example when that kind of integration is not present. Everybody could try it with his own system in order to understand if he has that kind of special sound recreation. It's simple: just switch off one of the channels of your acoustic system (left or right). In most cases the sound collapses very badly – the entire atmosphere is gone and there remains just one small and tiny sounding sound spot.  It happens in nearly 100% of the cases, despite the perfect integration of the tweeter output. The sound field is severely deformed and shrunk down to the size of the midrange driver. You hear the sounds are emitted by a loudspeaker in front of you from a single point.

If the HF driver is integrated really properly and IF your midrange channel is not crap, then the sound field should not collapse – you must be able to feel the authentic atmosphere of the recording without any deficiency – it happens when you have an audio window with almost unlimited size in order to be able to jump directly inside the recording. Otherwise you hear the music information, but you don’t have the feeling it is something that is able to involve you emotionally – it rather sounds like a paraphrase of the musical event, or, if the system is more advanced – like a memory of the musical event. Just a simple illustration:

One channel swithed off effect.jpg

Best regards,
Haralanov



"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." -A.E.
07-29-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,540
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 14
Post ID: 16731
Reply to: 16730
Good illustration but bad reasoning in my view.
fiogf49gjkf0d
I very much like he graphic illustration of the phenomena that Haralanov is trying to advocate but I very much disagree with Haralanov conclusions.
The integration of HF MIGHT and MIGHT NOT have the effect that Haralanov described. The effect he describe and depicted might wary from many different properties of sound reproduction, including from the performance of HF. Still, if the change from left image presentation to right image presentation is possible with no modification of HF then would we admin that HF has nothing to do with it?

Where I think Haralanov is right is that in context of a given playback and the given HF problem the HF might change the presentation from left to right image but it is only because the HF are basically bad and by user tune them to the state where they affect sound less negative. The reality is that very good, or even great HF shell not change presentation from left to right, they shall make sound brighter but still perfectly listenable and with no major impact to presentation scale.

So, what I feel is that Haralanov present the specific and very explicit presumably positive result that he got from his specific tweeter as some kind of universal solution about tweeters presentation. I do not think that it is accurate and I am absolutely insist that output of good tweeters shall not affect geometry of presentation in that way how Haralanov depicted.

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
07-29-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
haralanov


Bulgaria
Posts 130
Joined on 05-20-2008

Post #: 15
Post ID: 16732
Reply to: 16731
It depends of many variables
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Romy the Cat wrote:
Still, if the change from left image presentation to right image presentation is possible with no modification of HF then would we admin that HF has nothing to do with it?

Yes, it mostly depends of how the tweeter is used. But one could never achieve the sound presentation at the left side of the illustration without using the “right” tweeter (at least to the magnitude that I’m talking about – he must not feel ANY deficiency of space) no matter his efforts to integrate it. If the tweeter cannot do certain things right, one can try 1000000 configurations without getting that effect of unlimited audio window.

 Romy the Cat wrote:
Where I think Haralanov is right is that in context of a given playback and the given HF problem the HF might change the presentation from left to right image but it is only because the HF are basically bad

In my experience, it can happen even if the quality of the HF channel is very good. I have listened a lot of acoustic systems with good tweeters, which totally collapse when I turn off one of their stereo channels. May be your midrange horn and ribbon tweeter have some features that makes them insensitive to the effect I already described.

 Romy the Cat wrote:
I do not think that it is accurate and I am absolutely insist that output of good tweeters shall not affect geometry of presentation in that way how Haralanov depicted.

It is possible they will not affect it, but I think it can happen only when the level of the HF channel is at least 7-8dB lower in comparison to MF channel and when the crossover point of the tweeter is higher than 20-30kHz… In every other case it is perfectly able to deform the geometry and size of the space (at least to my experience).


"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." -A.E.
07-29-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Jorge
Austin TX
Posts 137
Joined on 10-17-2010

Post #: 16
Post ID: 16734
Reply to: 16732
Wave lenght and xover
fiogf49gjkf0d
Haralanov,  I guess you mean to say disconnect the tweeter on one side of your playback?  not the whole left side of the playback...

When you use compression drivers it is very important to design the horn taking care of the high frequency response.  I have seen very expensive commercial setups with huge midrange horns.  This big horn will not let the higher notes escape the horn and will start to sound dead at 5 khz.  In addition to this it will load the driver down to a lower frequency where it has no busisines going;  this will damage not only the high frequency response of that driver but also the mid range, unless a higher lever xover is used to cut off the lower range, and this again will kill sound.  This is why the sizing of the mid range horn is extremely important.

My midrange horn goes very high,  I cut my tweeters at 10 khz, and even could do without them,  but they do help to the whole repoduction effects we are talking about.    At this high crossing point I can turn one or two off with no big damage to the whole image.  

Time alignment is one of the most important tools of a high resolution sound system,  crossing tweeters this high up, forces one to have a very precise time alignment, since the wave lenghts at higher frequencies are smaller, and remember a 1/4 of a wave lenght is noticieable in the response of a system.  But also crossing so high gets the xover out of our most delicate listening range.

So on one side, the time alignment of a driver at higher frequencies is more difficult, but it is also less critical. 

Now this does not mean, one can lazy out and not align the tweeter properly, but this crossing is not so vital and important since it is so high up.

Crossing to a tweeter at 3 or 5 khz must be a PITA.

My compresson driver starts at around 600 hz,  the wave lenght at this frequency is now larger, so micro aligment is less critical,  one can do steps of 1/16th of an inch in order to align while that adjsutment at 10 khz would be too much.

I guess a lot depends on the topology of your system.
07-29-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,540
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 17
Post ID: 16735
Reply to: 16717
What is sound of Twitters?
fiogf49gjkf0d
Actually Jorge brought a valid perspective: the HF that are crossed at 5K are not the same as HF that are crossed at 10K. The point is that in a playback that crossed at 5K one can’t talk about HF as a self contained expressive tool as in that type configuration a person has no control over HF. In my definition HF is the frequency without which playback can play perfectly fine. Jorge crosses at 10K, I at 12.5K… there is no magic number and it all depends from many things like room, topology, drive, loading etc… Still, the main frame of sound shall not be formed by tweeter and this why I feel that haralanov’s illustration  above  regarding the changing of the presentation window shall not be affected by tweeter alone, at least not as much as haralanov depicted.

BTW, in the subject of integration of tweeters it is VERY important to have the TTH characteristic match between MF and tweeter, this is my few is super important and it very seldom paid attention to. People like to talk about good quality of tweeters but they never understand that it is not about the quality of tweeter itself but about the match the specific tweeter to the specific MF driver. I have written about it many times but I did not see it got any traction among audio people.  I quest they need time to ripe…

One more moment, Haralanov wrote:
 haralanov wrote:
It is certainly very very important, but how many systems you have listened where you can not be able to recognize the HFs as disconnected part of the sound? I just wanted to ask if you have ever heard a system, where the sound of the tweeter is COMPLETELY part of the midrange. I know there are a lot of people who insist they integrated their tweeters perfectly, but when I visit those people, I can always identify the sound of their tweeters.
 …it would be interesting to let you Haralanov to hear my installation as it is today and to hear your opinion about HF integration in today’s Macondo. I do not insist that it is good or bad but I can assure you that it is a bit different then what you might accustomed. I can’t not explain what the difference is (you need to hear it) but I do have option to change the integration schema literally on fly.  If you find yourself in Boston then I can try a few integration schemas and if you tell me whish one you like I think I will be able to tell you precisely what specifically annoys you in sound of tweeters.
 
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
07-30-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
haralanov


Bulgaria
Posts 130
Joined on 05-20-2008

Post #: 18
Post ID: 16736
Reply to: 16735
Audio window is formed mainly by the MF channel - the tweeter only deforms it (in most of the cases)
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Jorge wrote:
Haralanov,  I guess you mean to say disconnect the tweeter on one side of your playback?  not the whole left side of the playback...

No, Jorge, I meant to disconnect the whole left or right side of the playback system. If you do not feel any deficiency of the recording’s atmosphere, then your system is absolutely top class. Try it. Romy can try it too. Then both of you may report what you hear, because Boston is too far away from me to listen your acoustic systems…

 Romy the Cat wrote:
Still, the main frame of sound shall not be formed by tweeter

You are absolutely correct. I have always said that. The main frame of sound should be formed by the midrange/widerange channel and the size of this frame directly depends of the physical size of that channel.  The only task of the tweeter is to help the midrange/widerange channel to reproduce the full spectrum of the overtones of the instruments and their decay to silence – nothing more. It should not affect the properties of the audio window (but in reality it affects it - practically in ALL of the systems I have ever listened)...

 Romy the Cat wrote:
and this why I feel that haralanov’s illustration  above  regarding the changing of the presentation window shall not be affected by tweeter alone, at least not as much as haralanov depicted.

I remember you said that in your installation there is no difference in sound when your tweeter is working/not working. That’s why your audio window does not deform (despite you have taken care by it's precise time alignment). And I’m talking about deformation of space when only one of the stereo channels has being listened. It is completely different story when the other channel is playing – a lot of the defects gets masked.

 Romy the Cat wrote:
BTW, in the subject of integration of tweeters it is VERY important to have the TTH characteristic match between MF and tweeter, this is my few is super important and it very seldom paid attention to.

It is not only super important – it is super super critically important. I don’t know how close TTH characteristics your compression driver loaded in MDF horn and ribbon tweeter have, but my drivers are made to have absolutely identical TTH and dispersion patterns – same type of magnet systems, same type of voice coils, same type of paper, same type of radiation principle and so on… The tweeter is born to be the missing sound part of my widerange channel and there is nothing accidental in its sound.

 Romy the Cat wrote:
…it would be interesting to let you Haralanov to hear my installation as it is today and to hear your opinion about HF integration in today’s Macondo.

Yes, the demonstration is the only way to know exactly what type of sound/music presentation you have in your room, I’m sure it will be very interesting and educational for me, but too bad you live on the other side of the planet... Given the fact I cannot visit your room, could you describe as much in detail as possible what happens with the sound when your switch off one of the Macondo’s stereo channels? I'm very curious to know and I’m sure I will almost hear the actual sound by just reading your descriptions (it is always the case).


"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." -A.E.
07-30-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,148
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 19
Post ID: 16737
Reply to: 16736
HF, LF, Space, and Ambience
fiogf49gjkf0d
Well said, Haralanov.  It might be nice to say also, for further clarity,  that the wide-range MF channel is not part of a 3-way system, because no wide-range-driver-with-extended-upper-end is "enough" without help as it goes down, toward and into the "power zone", and the need for more energy as this happens is exponential.  And, naturally, driver "integration" matters here, too.  Not to talk ahead of myself...  I will try to continue these thoughts, following my ongoing experience, in the "Natural Remedies for Sick Speakers?" thread.

I hear "HF" and "LF" as acting something like a "circle".  If they are extended and well-executed and integrated properly, then it +/- "completes the circle" with respect to presentation.  "Space" and "ambience" sure seem to be related; but you can have a version of either one without the other.  Of course, we want them both, together.

Best regards,
Paul
07-30-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,540
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 20
Post ID: 16738
Reply to: 16736
Shutting down the tweeters.
fiogf49gjkf0d

 haralanov wrote:
Yes, the demonstration is the only way to know exactly what type of sound/music presentation you have in your room, I’m sure it will be very interesting and educational for me, but too bad you live on the other side of the planet... Given the fact I cannot visit your room, could you describe as much in detail as possible what happens with the sound when your switch off one of the Macondo’s stereo channels? I'm very curious to know and I’m sure I will almost hear the actual sound by just reading your descriptions (it is always the case).

I presume, in context of the conversion in this thread, you are not talking about switch off one of the Macondo’s stereo channels but rather switch off one of the Macondo’s HF channels. Some might be surprised but by turning off the Macondo’s tweeters the sound change very little but whatever difference would be is mostly in positive direction. Yes, without the tweeters Macondo has a bit more textured sound as the fine granularity of my YO186-S2 combination begin to shine through more prominently. Still, after a while this super sexy granularity become to be a bit over presented across all music and I feel a need to hold that throaty granularity slightly back. The tweeters do smear that MF texture a bit, not literally smear but rather override it to the point how I feel it to be texture – neutral.

For sure the tweeter do bring some own positive element to sound as well. It is hard to describe what they do. They for sure add transients, bite to HF, nice extension of MF overtones but the most important they produce the smooth and what I usually call “lubricated” enter and exit for mid range tones.

If you do cooking then you know about the importance of having a good cooking knifes. Well, a good knife is not truly important and if you are good cook then you are good cook with any knife but for a sake of association let discard the cooking art and let look only at the quality of knives, not even the knives but rather the knives sharpening.  The badly sharpen knife is your basic MF. That knife of cause can cut meet and veritable. However, then you begin to sharpen your knife and use better quality knives and you realize the cutting the same pork might be almost a pleasure as you shell not exhibit any cutting pressure but rather juts move your hand what you would like it to go and the good night will do the job itself.

The HF, if they compliment MF properly, do the same job – they create proper, more natural, more auditably-palatable entry and exit for MF into auditable space. They sort of the lubricate the MF and make MF it interact with room more naturally and more discriminatively.

Saying all of it I have to note that in my care my HF are very complex as they are not only efforts of MF and HF driver but also the efforts of Injection Channels that is good 2 feet ways with all negative consequences of lobbing and many other mean things. Still, if it did not work then I would not use it and all together it somehow works fine in my estimation.

BTW, If someone would ask me what is the main aspect of proper HF integration then I would name properly sounding electricity at the very top list of my priorities…

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
07-31-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
haralanov


Bulgaria
Posts 130
Joined on 05-20-2008

Post #: 21
Post ID: 16740
Reply to: 16738
Slightly different perspective on the subject
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Romy the Cat wrote:
For sure the tweeter do bring some own positive element to sound as well. It is hard to describe what they do. They for sure add transients, bite to HF, nice extension of MF overtones but the most important they produce the smooth and what I usually call “lubricated” enter and exit for mid range tones. The HF, if they compliment MF properly, do the same job – they create proper, more natural, more auditably-palatable entry and exit for MF into auditable space. They sort of the lubricate the MF and make MF it interact with room more naturally and more discriminatively.

Yes, Romy, you described it very well, and it is perfectly normal to happen. Transient response is function of frequency and phase response and nobody could have realistic sounding transients if he has limitation of the frequency response. The tweeters even do some more – they extend the color spectrum of the acoustic system’s sound. Every midrange driver has a tendency to lack the color discrimination in its upper working range (due to different resonances inside its structure) and it makes Amati and Stradivari violins (just for an example) to have the same sound signature due to the lack of tonal complexity when reproducing their specific overtones. And if the frequency response is limited, they could even sound like violas! If the overtones are screwed in some way (and there are thousands of things in the drivers and the way the drivers are used, that violate overtone’s complex structure) then the sound gets very specific with its own taste, which is added to all of the reproduced sound. Speakers are just dead mechanical devices with no own intelligence, so they blindly add/distract their own taste and the really bad thing is they do it every time and always in the same way. The tweeter helps a lot, it injects a lot of color nuances, but only if the midrange channel has the potential to do some things correct. Besides that, every midrange/widerange driver blocks the very fine nuances in the decay of the instruments – without reproducing them, the brain could always recognize the sound is not real, but it is reproduced. It directly affects the musicality of the system, because it adds a lot of bricks and fog on the way of the communication bridge between the system and the listener, as something invisible just stays in front of the music and blocks the authentity of its messages.

decay without tweeter.JPG

So the tweeter is always needed. The bad thing is it deforms (in 99,9999999999999999999% of the cases) the perfectly round audio window, formed by the midrange channel and "pull" some notes sometimes at its axis. These are often the notes that have their fundamentals at the upper working range of the midrange channel. The higher the midrange channel extends (but only if it has good tonal complexity in its upper range!!), the less prominent that effect is. Doing this, it deforms the coordinate system of the sound field and mainly affects its deepness and unlimited openness. It could be very easily detected by just listening only one of the channels of a given stereo system. But first of all, I have to note this cannot happen if the midrange/widerange channel is not able to project that coordinate system. Everything depends on it. In the world of direct radiators it is mainly a matter of size of the driver. 8” widerange could not even dream for open space presentation, despite the fact it can have mind boggling tone. Just an example:
 
IMG_4153.jpg
 
Not even 10” – it could present the correct size of the images, but there is still a lack of the original space around these images. 12” – this is another world, but only if made properly. There are no 12” widerange drivers made commercially that can do this, so unfortunately no one can understand what I’m talking about. About the world of horns – I do not know – I just don’t have enough experience, but I suppose there is a minimum diameter of the horn’s throat (just like there is minimum size of the voice coil of direct radiators) in order to be able to project that space.
 
 Romy the Cat wrote:
I presume, in context of the conversion in this thread, you are not talking about switch off one of the Macondo’s stereo channels but rather switch off one of the Macondo’s HF channels.

No, no, I’m talking just about switching off one of the Macondo’s stereo channels – not the tweeter of one of the main channels. This is the only way to know the true capabilities of your driver’s setup and its absolute performance and it is the most difficult test for ANY system to pass.
So what do you hear after you switch off one of the stereo channels? Do you feel any collapsing of sound and especially the scale of sound? Do you feel that the sound is pushed inside your midrange horn? Do you feel the size of the instruments has shrunk down? Does the sound still breathes freely in the air? Are you still able to feel the original acoustic atmosphere of the recordings or you now have the feeling that the sound is just in front of you inside your room?

Best of all,
P. Haralanov



"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." -A.E.
07-31-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,540
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 22
Post ID: 16741
Reply to: 16740
Switch off one of the stereo channels…
fiogf49gjkf0d
 haralanov wrote:
So the tweeter is always needed. The bad thing is it deforms (in 99,9999999999999999999% of the cases) the perfectly round audio window, formed by the midrange channel and "pull" some notes sometimes at its axis. These are often the notes that have their fundamentals at the upper working range of the midrange channel. The higher the midrange channel extends (but only if it has good tonal complexity in its upper range!!), the less prominent that effect is. Doing this, it deforms the coordinate system of the sound field and mainly affects its deepness and unlimited openness. It could be very easily detected by just listening only one of the channels of a given stereo system. But first of all, I have to note this cannot happen if the midrange/widerange channel is not able to project that coordinate system. Everything depends on it. In the world of direct radiators it is mainly a matter of size of the driver. 8” widerange could not even dream for open space presentation, despite the fact it can have mind boggling tone. …. Not even 10” – it could present the correct size of the images, but there is still a lack of the original space around these images. 12” – this is another world, but only if made properly. There are no 12” widerange drivers made commercially that can do this, so unfortunately no one can understand what I’m talking about. About the world of horns – I do not know – I just don’t have enough experience, but I suppose there is a minimum diameter of the horn’s throat (just like there is minimum size of the voice coil of direct radiators) in order to be able to project that space.
  
I am not familiar with those types of drivers and with the results they are able to show. I know that that there are some people (not in US) who tend to use open baffles and large light drivers with no suspension but I do not know what results they are getting from it.
 haralanov wrote:
No, no, I’m talking just about switching off one of the Macondo’s stereo channels – not the tweeter of one of the main channels. This is the only way to know the true capabilities of your driver’s setup and its absolute performance and it is the most difficult test for ANY system to pass.
So what do you hear after you switch off one of the stereo channels? Do you feel any collapsing of sound and especially the scale of sound? Do you feel that the sound is pushed inside your midrange horn? Do you feel the size of the instruments has shrunk down? Does the sound still breathes freely in the air? Are you still able to feel the original acoustic atmosphere of the recordings or you now have the feeling that the sound is just in front of you inside your room?

Of cause when we set up sound of loudspeaker we deal with only one right or left channel.  Regarding the switching from full stereo to mono by only from right or left channels then it is slightly from different plot. Of cause I have “collapsing of sound and especially the scale of sound” but it only happened for my stereo listening position.  To use a single speaker and to get proper mono sound it requires having the speaker to be positioned in the room differently. Since I do not move the speakers when I go mono I do prefer to have mono coming from both right and left channels. I know there are people who love to preach that it is impossible to get proper mono from stereo installation but I disagree and I very much prefer mono coming from both speakers in my room. I am talking about mono sound not accidently as I do not feel that only right or only left channels of stereo sound is worthy  in most of the cases.
 
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
07-31-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
haralanov


Bulgaria
Posts 130
Joined on 05-20-2008

Post #: 23
Post ID: 16742
Reply to: 16741
Some more questions
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Romy the Cat wrote:
I am not familiar with those types of drivers and with the results they are able to show.

Yes, but you are familiar with the compression driver and horns. How could somebody control the size of the audio window, formed by his midrange channel, using horns? If I remember correctly, you chose your Vitavox S2 driver because of its tone, so you deal with a fixed diameter of the horn’s throat (that means fixed size of the audio window, without option to be controlled). But is it optimal? How could one adjust it without changing the compression driver? I also remember you decided to load it in 440Hz horn based on the frequency range it will play after the high-passing. But is the size of that 440Hz horn enough to reveal the background of the sound? Yes, I realize the bigger the horn, the worse it plays in the upper part of its range, but how could one adjust all those contradicting variables by just using given compression driver in a given horn?

 Romy the Cat wrote:
I know that that there are some people (not in US) who tend to use open baffles and large light drivers with no suspension but I do not know what results they are getting from it.

I know what their results are – too much energy in the midrange, lack of tonal complexity in the upper midrange, bad HFs and no bass. I will be very surprised if somebody demonstrate me some different sound than the above mentioned description when using only one driver, no matter its size. In addition, drivers with no suspension do not have tone - the sound is always too empty. I personally use 12” for my main widerange channel and at the same time I’m using 2x15” in symmetric configuration to get the energy in the lower midrange and upper bass (they are not finished yet), and now I’m building 4 pcs of 23” paper coned drivers to cover the bass range with proper authority and scale. Single 12” in OB is nothing more than just a naïve fantasy if one is looking for really full scale sound.

 Romy the Cat wrote:
Of cause I have “collapsing of sound and especially the scale of sound” but it only happened for my stereo listening position.  To use a single speaker and to get proper mono sound it requires having the speaker to be positioned in the room differently.

It doesn’t have to happen, despite the current positioning of one of your stereo channels. Actually it doesn’t have to happen even if that channel is put in the corner. Do you think there is a position in your room where that channel will present the sound in a way that you won’t be able to feel any deficiency of the recreated space?



"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." -A.E.
07-31-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,540
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 24
Post ID: 16743
Reply to: 16742
Sorry, I do not follow your.
fiogf49gjkf0d
 haralanov wrote:
Yes, but you are familiar with the compression driver and horns. How could somebody control the size of the audio window, formed by his midrange channel, using horns? If I remember correctly, you chose your Vitavox S2 driver because of its tone, so you deal with a fixed diameter of the horn’s throat (that means fixed size of the audio window, without option to be controlled). But is it optimal? How could one adjust it without changing the compression driver? I also remember you decided to load it in 440Hz horn based on the frequency range it will play after the high-passing. But is the size of that 440Hz horn enough to reveal the background of the sound? Yes, I realize the bigger the horn, the worse it plays in the upper part of its range, but how could one adjust all those contradicting variables by just using given compression driver in a given horn?

Sorry, I am not following what you are trying to say. My familiarity with compression drivers has nothing to do with it and my selection of 440Hz horn for S2 was because the S2 specifics not because my consideration of audio window. The term “audio window” – we need to define what it is as I think you and me use different definition what audio window is. In my view audio window is not geometrical term and I do not work on “shaping” it.  

 haralanov wrote:

It doesn’t have to happen, despite the current positioning of one of your stereo channels. Actually it doesn’t have to happen even if that channel is put in the corner. Do you think there is a position in your room where that channel will present the sound in a way that you won’t be able to feel any deficiency of the recreated space?

Oh, yes, it would not happened if speakers are located in corners but my speakers are very much not in the corners but in the mid of the room. I do not like the corners positioning, even for corner-loaded speakers and it always flatten out the back wall. Again, I am not following what you are trying to say. With disconnect one of the channel in my configuration I do lose a lot of “space” but I do not consider it as something wrong. This is absolutely normal in my case as my room and my entire listening environment are built around a pair of speakers.  I do not use single left or right channels, unless I calibrate measure or test. With two channels on I feel that I have no problem with “recreated space deficiency”. If I had objective to drive my room from one channel it would be completely different design a but I have no such objectives.

Rgs, 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
07-31-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
haralanov


Bulgaria
Posts 130
Joined on 05-20-2008

Post #: 25
Post ID: 16744
Reply to: 16743
OK, then follow me :-)
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Romy the Cat wrote:
With two channels on I feel that I have no problem with "recreated space deficiency"

Romy, I have never said you have to listen to only one channel during your regular listening sessions. I just mentioned it is the most difficult TEST to pass for any system, including your Macondo. Of course you will listen at both of your stereo channels. But their absolute performance strongly depends on the quality of your left and right channel alone. So if they do the things I already mentioned several times, the owner of these stereo channels will experience different, much more advanced type of recreated reality (which could NEVER be achieved if the channels have any deficiency of “space” when listened separately, no matter the room integration efforts and no matter if they are placed according to DPoLS rules)
 
 Romy the Cat wrote:
my selection of 440Hz horn for S2 was because the S2 specifics not because my consideration of audio window. The term "audio window" - we need to define what it is as I think you and me use different definition what audio window is.

“Audio window” – that is property of sound that belongs entirely to the reproduced sound and it is strongly system related. It doesn’t exist in reality (when listening live music), because in reality it is totally unlimited in size. Despite the fact it is sound related, it directly affects the musicality. I’m not a good descriptor of sound in context of English language, so I should give you very simple example of that playback’s related phenomena, despite the fact I am perfectly sure you already understood what I’m talking about. Take any accidental midrange driver and let your amplifier to feed some signal to it. What you should hear is a sound pushed inside a very tiny spot – that’s what I call small “audio window”. As I already gave an association somewhere within your site – it is the same like watching a movie on the display of your mobile phone – you get the idea of the event, but it is totally artificial – you are completely disabled to feel the physical aspect of the event. So there is a critical size of that “window” and if it is not achieved, one can never have the physical aspect and the greatness of a given recorded musical event. The physical aspect makes the recreated event believable and real, so if the listener could not get in touch with it, he cannot feel that physical directness of the musical messages, because he rather feels the sound like a the memory of the music popping up from the "head" of his acoustic system, but not the super expressiveness of the music. So the system should be able to reproduce the music with the same amplitude as the originally performed music, in order to affect the listener in the same, and IF is possible – in even more influencing way.
So with improving the quality of the system, the audio window should get larger and larger, until it lose its meaning as a sound related artifact (in the best case scenario with top level acoustic systems) – it should be completely transparent window of unlimited size, that allows you to be and to feel like a part of the original music event. In other words – there should be no window at all. So until that window is part of the system’s type of sound presentation, we are faced with something artificial, which makes the reality not so believable and not so physical. Too pity that almost no one cares about that…


"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." -A.E.
Page 1 of 3 (63 items) Select Pages:  1 2 3 »
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  About Boiling Micro Response...  Complex and incredibly interesting?...  Playback Listening  Forum     2  20890  10-05-2010
  »  New  About the Audio Neutrality...  Taking neutral when/where one can get it...  Playback Listening  Forum     12  75411  03-31-2007
  »  New  How to evaluate playback... or the Six-Leveled-Listenin..  Introduction to Level #2 - the Dynamic Level...  Playback Listening  Forum     3  51109  06-12-2004
  »  New  Macondo's Axioms: Horn-loaded acoustic systems..  No wonder...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     72  403897  07-29-2007
  »  New  About speakers Imbedded Macro-Positioning...  Big room AEZ...  Playback Listening  Forum     15  131203  05-16-2007
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