Flat Response

[Deward Hastings]

Re: Flat Response

They definitely aren't trying and essentially can't do realism. Trust me, they go for some arbitrary goal depending on genre that basically boils down to "what this demographic buys". I read an article that touched on it a few months ago.

If you don't already subscribe find somebody or some place that has a pile of back issues of "Tape Op" . . . it's seriously depressing if "high fidelity reproduction" was ever a concern of yours (although there are a few people still trying), but it's head and shoulders above anything else out there if you're interested in what's really happening "in the trenches" in the recording world. There are some artists and producers who are at least trying for some level of "quality" in the currently more "popular" genres, and a number of re-masters of older recordings that seem to seek a "better" sound than a lot of the current issues . . . I was floored by how good the recently re-mastered Butterfield Blues Band set sounds . . . not "Hi Fi", but damned good. I thought the recent Leonard Cohen "Live in London" album was quite well done, too.

The classical repertoire is a problem . . . most of us "in the field" listen to older recordings, and for the performance, not for "audiophile kicks", so what we hope for is the most uncompromised and "live-like" presentation we can get in our "home" systems. And we all know that the best we're going to get is a somewhat convincing illusion . . . and that the recordings themselves are imperfect at best too.

[MSaturn]

Re: Flat Response

I am not certain how you could have eliminated all other variables. The only way to test that accurately would be to have a perfectly flat response and EQ in tiny dips and peaks .. and then you might introduce delay distortion ..

I am not attacking you here, but the need to test only one variable is nearly impossible in the sound arena.

Also, those peaks/dips are usually what, 1/10th of an octave wide, if that? The ear is good at averaging things out.

[Guest]

Re: Flat Response

If anyone has any doubts about what manufacturers who must sell to "most" people with "typical" rooms are designing, take a look here:
http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/ind...d=16&Itemid=18
..at what the competent, research driven ones are doing.
Amphion, Axiom, Energy, Paradigm, PSB, Revel, etc.
(no cherry picking )

[MSaturn]

Re: Flat Response

Well, I'll be damned.

All this time I wasn't giving Dynaudio enough credit.

Lower bass distortion isn't exceptional, but .. I can't hate on that level of linearity. Too bad they cost so much (nearly the entire line, for example, is outperformed by the NHT classic three.)

Also, one of the best loudspeakers on the entire list - with nearly non-existent distortion - is the MB Quart. Interesting.

Stereophile verbiage: "In every other meaningful way, the Reference 3A MM de Capo i is as unforgettable as your favorite song,.... " .. $2500 ..

[dantheman]

Re: Flat Response

I find brightness is really a 4 or 5 to 8 kHz problem, similar to your findings.

A main cause of harshness IME is tightly spaced frequency response peaks and dips causing a very uneven frequency response.

Auditory roughness is caused by amplitude modulation and beating. I wonder if excess treble energy out of balance in the reverb field and too hot could be causing roughness when it interacts with the main axial signal.

Dave

Cool, it seems we have some similar observations. That means 2 weak--d/t being sited and knowing the graphs--data points. I would just mod that last point a bit. I think the reverberant field just gives the ear another chance to look at the information(I believe Dr. Toole mentions this in ch #9, but I may be crazy) and Dr. Geddes says the ear has an integration time of 10-20ms. More reverb, more looks. If that information has a harshness, it will just make it more apparent. I think that's why the B1030A has such a detailed sound--its wavefront shape is very broad over much of its range excluding the top octave. I think the ear/brain just gets more opportunity to dissect the information. That 1030A exposed a number of low level defects in my recordings. So much so that I thought it was broken. I have never heard the source material so clearly after many years of listening. Later I was able to hear those same defects through other speakers(I probably learned they were there to some degree), just not as prominent.

That's why I believe the low diffraction speakers regardless of environment do not sound harsh. Where your ear/brain in a less reflective environment is more tolerant of a diffractive source b/c it doesn't have to look at it so many times.

Dan

[Deward Hastings]

Re: Flat Response

(no cherry picking )

Take your own advice . . . most of the ones I looked at (excepting the obvious garbage) have a downward slope . . . and those with less pronounced slope off axis have more pronounced slope on axis. Most seem to be aiming for a falling response overall . . . :D

[dantheman]

Re: Flat Response

If you don't already subscribe find somebody or some place that has a pile of back issues of "Tape Op" . . . it's seriously depressing if "high fidelity reproduction" was ever a concern of yours (although there are a few people still trying), but it's head and shoulders above anything else out there if you're interested in what's really happening "in the trenches" in the recording world. There are some artists and producers who are at least trying for some level of "quality" in the currently more "popular" genres, and a number of re-masters of older recordings that seem to seek a "better" sound than a lot of the current issues . . . I was floored by how good the recently re-mastered Butterfield Blues Band set sounds . . . not "Hi Fi", but damned good. I thought the recent Leonard Cohen "Live in London" album was quite well done, too.

The classical repertoire is a problem . . . most of us "in the field" listen to older recordings, and for the performance, not for "audiophile kicks", so what we hope for is the most uncompromised and "live-like" presentation we can get in our "home" systems. And we all know that the best we're going to get is a somewhat convincing illusion . . . and that the recordings themselves are imperfect at best too.

Tape Op rocks--at least the forum does. I have never been a subscriber, but I should be. Glad you brought it up. I'm a member on their forum, but sadly haven't been following it for a long time. Allowed myself to be tied up in too many other things. It is good that there are some folks out there doing their best to produce real HiFi. You'd be saddened if you read some of the other pros on other forums are up to. You can't talk to them. They have a different focus in general--and maybe hearing. I'm doing my best however. I think I need to up my own recordings to a high level and have them listen. I'm slowly acquiring the ability, and perhaps even more slowly developing the talent.

Thanks for the recording recommendations!

Dan

[MSaturn]

Re: Flat Response

What? The JM lab, Revel, Dynaudio, Von Schweikert, MB Quart, PSB, and NHT speakers all have flat response.

[Guest]

Re: Flat Response

Take your own advice . . . most of the ones I looked at (excepting the obvious garbage) have a downward slope . . . and those with less pronounced slope off axis have more pronounced slope on axis. Most seem to be aiming for a falling response overall . . . :D

ACI

Amphion

Ascend

Athena

Aurum

Axiom


:rolleyes:

[Zilch]

Re: Flat Response

"Flat-on-axis" can sound OK *if* you have a beaming tweeter and a relatively dead room (lots of HF absorption), since the falling power response results in a falling response overall for the listener. "Flat-on-axis" in and of itself is not a good design goal, since it will, more often than not, not produce a "balanced" or "natural" sound for the listener in the typical listening room. How far off "flat" one should design for depends on the speaker's directivity (power response) and the acoustics of the intended listening room. While "flat" is perhaps an "interesting" place to start it will rarely be the final response of a well designed speaker system. It just won't sound good, most of the time.

Not that simple; there's a time window for reflected energy to influence perceived spectral content and balance. Linkwitz says 6ms, Toole and Geddes, 10ms, Kantor, 20ms, and Allison, 30ms. It's already been mentioned here that we "hear through" anything outside some delay window. That's a factor constant directivity advocates exploit to minimize the influence of the room upon the quality of the direct field.

If Geddes's directivity map of Orion is correct, it does not meet Linkwitz's least stringent criterion, even; with a 130° horizontal beamwidth, the dipole effect fails to squelch the earliest (and strongest) ipsilateral reflection, leaving it substantially in play. That's Geddes's criticism of such wide dispersion -- both spatial and spectral quality remain at at the mercy of room variables.

[Artificial spaciousness enthusiasts cry "foul," of course.... :D ]

[Deward Hastings]

Re: Flat Response

What? The JM lab, Revel, Dynaudio, Von Schweikert, MB Quart, PSB, and NHT speakers all have flat response.

If you're going to cherry pick . . . at least do it well. The Revel M20 drops 2dB from 1k up (on axis), the NHT 3 drops 1-2 from 1k to 5k, before it peaks at about 9, the MB Quart drops a dB from 1k to 5k, as does the Dynaudio C1 (ignoring the dip at 6k), the PSB Alpha drops 1 or 2 db . . .

Some of them have a "sizzle bump" around 10k, but even with that the average tends down, 1-2 dB/decade.

[Guest]

Re: Flat Response

[Artificial spaciousness enthusiasts cry "foul," of course.... :D ]

Ummm, stereo is an artificial construct. What would make the spaciousness component "artificial" because one speaker (dipole) created more than another (monopole) from the same (artificial) recording?
I perceive plenty spaciousness in real life (acoustic) music. Why reduce it to be "accurate"....to an artificial recording?

[Deward Hastings]

Re: Flat Response

:rolleyes:

Cherry picking, AJ? :eek: Can't follow your own advice? :rolleyes:

[Zilch]

Re: Flat Response

What? The JM lab, Revel, Dynaudio, Von Schweikert, MB Quart, PSB, and NHT speakers all have flat response.

Surprised? Vintage audio enthusiasts will tell you they all suck; all modern designs are too bright for their taste. They are gleefully quoting Linkwitz as evidence their preference was correct all along.

FACT is, Linkwitz's niche is concert hall realism; he voices his speakers with his own live recordings made using microphones on his spectacles to get it right. That means what Allison & Berkovitz said 40 years ago -- rolled off highs.

Ummm, stereo is an artificial construct. What would make the spaciousness component "artificial" because one speaker (dipole) created more than another (monopole) from the same (artificial) recording?
I perceive plenty spaciousness in real life (acoustic) music. Why reduce it to be "accurate"....to an artificial recording?

Some recordings have it, some don't. It's not always necessary to "fake" it. No matter what, we can't get LEV two-channel, but with intelligent application of existing knowledge, we CAN enhance ASW spaciousness WITHOUT compromising imaging and accuracy....

[Deward Hastings]

Re: Flat Response

with a 130° horizontal beamwidth, the dipole effect fails to squelch the earliest (and strongest) ipsilateral reflection, leaving it substantially in play.

Not so . . . with the recommended toe-in and position the listener generally does not hear a first (specular) reflection from the side.