Flat Response

[Zilch]

Re: Flat Response

The paper that zilch pointed out showed that a strong first reflection aids intelligibility. Might be a good starting point if added detail is desired. Sort of the anti-Kantor method.

You'd better discuss that with Ken; Toole is quick to point out that studies of speech vs. music often produce different findings. In conference vs. listening rooms, it's also production vs. reproduction, as well.

That paper is a Cliff Notes version of Toole's book, in my view.

wow way too much to read, but after about 20 minutes of skimming through this, did anyone mention that some builders prefer a flat response so that the speaker is not coloring the music. The theory being every component has a flat response and you only hear the music. (well if your amp is linear says nelson pass)

Well, you've gone straight to the heart of the matter. Some builders profess to prefer speakers with a non-flat on-axis response despite the fact that often such speakers clearly do, virtually by definition, "color the music," which is why they do it, of course.... :D

[dantheman]

Re: Flat Response

I don't find *any* speaker perfect . . . (including ORION, and the B2030A). I do find that the response change that restores (perceptually) a more accurate tonal balance also substantially reduces the perception of "harshness" (which I find mostly already present in recordings, not significantly added, at least by those speakers).

I gotta admit that is shocking. Of course I didn't think it was significant in the 2031 until I fixed the diffractive/damping issue. I thought that cleared the harshness issue comparing it to the other unmodified pair. Then comparing it to better designs the harshness became apparent again.

DDF, thanks. I'll get back to you. I'm going to do some research.

Dan

[Deward Hastings]

Re: Flat Response

I gotta admit that is shocking. Of course I didn't think it was significant in the 2031 until I fixed the diffractive/damping issue.

In my experience "harshness" is rarely if ever a diffraction issue . . . if it were it would change as the listener moves (and the diffraction signature changes).

[dantheman]

Re: Flat Response

You might want to think about the integration time and this:


Dan

[Dennis H]

Re: Flat Response

I gotta admit that is shocking. Of course I didn't think it was significant in the 2031 until I fixed the diffractive/damping issue. I thought that cleared the harshness issue comparing it to the other unmodified pair. Then comparing it to better designs the harshness became apparent again.

I know you and Danny had your differences but I thought it was interesting that when he chamfered the backside of the woofer hole it really smoothed out that 700 hump and 1K dip. That said, I don't know if that's the harshness you're hearing.

[dantheman]

Re: Flat Response

It may be part of the little harshness left, but it sounds spectrally higher. The way for me to find out would be to chamfer the opening. Nothing better than basically free mods that work especially when the cost is so low to start. :D I'd like to implement some of the Wmax mods too. They are nearly free as well for most and absolutely for me. I already have all the material.

Good looking out Dennis!

Dan

[Guest]

Re: Flat Response

Most people think that studio monitors sound awful.

I had no idea a poll had been taken.
Link?

I, on the other hand, think they sound fantastic.

Well, if you are referring to the modern day ones per my examples, then like the majority (and unlike the fringe), you obviously like/prefer the "bright, harsh" sound...of undistorted source amplitude response. Got it? ;)

wow way too much to read, but after about 20 minutes of skimming through this, did anyone mention that some builders prefer a flat response so that the speaker is not coloring the music. The theory being every component has a flat response and you only hear the music. (well if your amp is linear says nelson pass)

Some builders?? Did you see what manufacturers have determined? Home, Pro, etc.? Did you note that transducer manufacturers (outside the fringe) also design for the greatest linearity ("flat response") possible?
There will always be small (but vocal) groups that believe their subjective craving for distortion (amplitude or otherwise) is an unerring reflection of reality "accuracy". Take a look at many Tube amp owners, who will state that this:


Is "accurate", "musical", "uncolored", etc, etc. at HF...and that solid state amplifiers



..are all "bright/harsh/colored" at HF...in their subjective perception (due to the lack of amplitude distortion in physical reality).
Don't overly concern yourself. Nod, smile, wink and move on to the next subject. :rolleyes:
If you still have any doubt whatsoever, than subjectively, on axis linearity cannot by itself, create "bright/harsh", but rather "other" factors are the reason, go listen to just about any design with a Vifa XT-25 (not crossed too low). They are essentially "flat" over their passband well beyond 20k on axis.



Tell me how bright/harsh they are while you relax on your couch (assuming you don't live in Pete's tiled bathroom) .

cheers,

AJ

[dantheman]

Re: Flat Response

Yes, by definition, flat cannot be bright or harsh by itself. I think the real problem boils down to this: many classical music lovers (and perhaps other audio enthusiasts) want something different that what the recording team is producing for them and it seems many must be purists and don't want to use tone controls. The other thing might be tinnitus. http://www.emedicinehealth.com/tinnitus/article_em.htm

quote: Some of the most common include a sound of crickets or roaring, buzzing, hissing, whistling, and high-pitched ringing.

My dad has chronic tinnitus and listens to his stereo with the bass all the way up and the treble all the way down--in his car, truck, and home system.:eek: Sounds horrid to me, but tolerable for him. He listens to talk radio and to me is just sounds like everyone has a cup over their mouth and I have trouble discerning the participants commentary. Apparently he doesn't.

Another thing I've noticed on recording boards is that many people in the business are mixing too bright/forward in my opinion. It's pretty much my commentary on 90 percent of the early mixes. Maybe b/c the mixing environment is so dead? The only argument against that is that they do try to make the reverb time even across the audible spectrum in studios. Then again integration time for various frequencies may come into play here.

The antithesis would be that the home environment being too lively and the frequency range we can hear that in well is above the bass range. Of course I can't imagine that making something harsh, but bright doesn't seem like too much of a stretch. Then we've been shown to adapt to our environment. Of course subjective "bright" and "harsh" could be the same thing for some people as there is no definitive delineation in the audiophile jargon. So far for me, the amount of diffraction seems directly proportional to the perception of harsh speaker sound and how well that is perceived correlates with room reflectivity. I only wish we had real stats on it.

Dan

[MSaturn]

Re: Flat Response

I think a great deal of it is recording.

Things are almost always compressed, limited, normalized, what have you - and some things are definitely overblown.

[dantheman]

Re: Flat Response

The question to me would be "why is it the recording?"

On preliminary mixes that haven't been taken outside the studio, I hear a lot of issues with recordings and typically bright or thin is the most obvious. When they are finalized I generally don't. I mean yea, they often get manipulated in ways that I may or may not agree with, but almost never do I hear "bright" on my system (unless it is an instrument that is naturally bright and those tonal feature of it are not being mitigated by playing style or the recording team) and I haven't heard "harsh" over these speakers. Of course I haven't been using them for much time either, and I don't own the same recordings others do. Conversely, over speakers with measurably more diffractive issues, every recording sounded bright and harsh. Reducing the diffraction largely took it away.

Dan

[MSaturn]

Re: Flat Response

I've recorded, mixed, and mastered live and studio recordings for some time now, and being a DIY'er definitely affects the way I do it - many people comment on how, er, "rich" or "life-like" they sound. My reference is things like Fleetwood Mac's "Rumours" or most of Steely Dan's stuff - styles of recording and mastering that aren't used so much anymore. Pretty dry, uncompressed, etc.

[dantheman]

Re: Flat Response

Those are great sounding recordings! Sound good on nearly anything.

Dan

[MSaturn]

Re: Flat Response

Yeah, too bad that school of recording went out of style. Seems like everything's just loaded with verb now!

[Zilch]

Re: Flat Response

"Rumors's" imaging is stunning.

[Something's right.... ]

[dantheman]

Re: Flat Response

Why do you figure that is? Add a sense of ambience for iPod user? I don't know why anything changed. Plus we have more tech now and maybe people just want to use it. Maybe that Fleetwood Mac Rumours type of thing is just harder to get right so now they just record everything fairly dead and add reverb and then compress it for iPods and car stereos. I don't know, but there is definitely a homogenization happening in the major label recording industry. Some like it, some don't. The people who buy a lot of stuff don't seem to be complaining. My little sister and her iPod and car stereo loving friends have no complaints and they buy tons of music(loosely used term:D).

Dan