Your loudspeakers are too small!

[sarumbear]

I don't believe you.

You don't have to.

 

[SIY]

I edited the titles in my phone so I could read them on the screen. It's the third track, unless my iphone has mixed up the tracks, which it sometimes does with multi-CD recordings, although I think these are correct.

Yeah, it's the third track but first scene (Funeral). Scene 3 (Window) is musically nice, but not exactly a bass challenge.

 

[Plcamp]

Localization is already poor at 80Hz. Some people are sensitive to it, some not. I, for instance am not.

80 hz is 14 feet wavelength (wider than almost all speaker separations) so I don’t understand how that could possibly be localized by anyone.

 

[SIY]

80 hz is 14 feet wavelength (wider than almost all speaker separations) so I don’t understand how that could possibly be localized by anyone.

It's possible by paying attention to what happens when it's switched on and then off. That will have higher frequency components which can be localized.

A continuous tone where you don't hear the switching? Yeah, localization would seem to be difficult.

 

[rdenney]

It's possible by paying attention to what happens when it's switched on and then off. That will have higher frequency components which can be localized.

A continuous tone where you don't hear the switching? Yeah, localization would seem to be difficult.

Unless it distorts or the sub amp clips, which could produce higher frequencies downstream from the crossover.

Rick "this thread is making me want a sub" Denney

 

[Larry B. Larabee]

80 hz is 14 feet wavelength (wider than almost all speaker separations) so I don’t understand how that could possibly be localized by anyone.

There's phase information in low frequencies that allow you to discern location.

 

[sarumbear]

There's phase information in low frequencies that allow you to discern location.

Where did you read about that?

 

[MattHooper]

I don't know what micro-dynamics are.

I don't really know either what "micro-dynamics" means. The thing that comes to my mind when I hear that misleading expression is "detail" and "structure", but I'm probably totally wrong.

Or it has no meaning whatsoever but sounds good.

I really don't understand why this concept seems to baffle anyone.

In the usual audiophile parlance, "macro dynamics" are the widest possible dynamic swings either from a live performance, or in a recording. Example being a symphony playing it's softest to loudest, a drummer doing the same, etc, and in a recording with wide dynamic range it will to a degree represent those wide jumps in dynamics in a life-like way. The ability to mirror the large dynamic swings of real performances is seen as one aspect of sonic accuracy/realism/believability.

"micro dynamics" are the more subtle alterations of loud and soft. Examples are the dynamic differences that happen when someone is playing an acoustic guitar - the little dynamic gradations in how each note may be hit with a slightly different force. Same with a piano player doing a jazz solor, or even a drummer's subtle alterations of force as he's playing a beat, the dynamic differences in force between each stroke. The choice of these gradations is often what *makes* a performance different from another way of interpreting a piece.

This isn't the stuff of woo-woo fantasy: it's simply identifying and naming real world phenomena in sound and musical performances, as well as in playback of performances. It's been explained more than once when this topic comes up. The agitation, much less the bafflement, seems strange. I mean...don't people around here recognize how applying compression can take the dynamic life/realism out of a recording?
(Isn't that one reason people rail against the "loudness" wars reducing and homogenizing dynamics?)

I'm in the habit of stopping to listen to real sounds to try to understand the character, relative to reproduced sound. When I'm passing a street musician playing, for instance, acoustic guitar when I stop, close my eyes, listen and ask myself "why does this sound so obviously LIVE, like a real guitar being played in front of me and not a sound system" one of the things that always sticks out is the sense of "micro dynamics" - that there seems to be a sense of dynamic variation in the picking of the strings that says "live person playing this instrument" where this aspect seems often somewhat flattened and homogenized somewhat, in acoustic guitar recordings.

And I've encountered some playback systems that seemed to recreate that micro dynamic life more convincingly than others, IMO. So I, and many other listeners, do find these words and distinctions to be identifying something useful.

 

[sarumbear]

I really don't understand why this concept seems to baffle anyone.

In the usual audiophile parlance, "macro dynamics" are the widest possible dynamic swings either from a live performance, or in a recording. Example being a symphony playing it's softest to loudest, a drummer doing the same, etc, and in a recording with wide dynamic range it will to a degree represent those wide jumps in dynamics in a life-like way. The ability to mirror the large dynamic swings of real performances is seen as one aspect of sonic accuracy/realism/believability.

"micro dynamics" are the more subtle alterations of loud and soft. Examples are the dynamic differences that happen when someone is playing an acoustic guitar - the little dynamic gradations in how each note may be hit with a slightly different force. Same with a piano player doing a jazz solor, or even a drummer's subtle alterations of force as he's playing a beat, the dynamic differences in force between each stroke.

This isn't the stuff of woo-woo fantasy: it's simply identifying and naming real world phenomena in sound and musical performances, as well as in playback of performances. It's been explained more than once when this topic comes up. The agitation, much less the bafflement, seems strange. I mean...don't people around here recognize how applying compression can take the dynamic life/realism out of a recording?
(Isn't that one reason people rail against the "loudness" wars reducing and homogenizing dynamics?)

I'm in the habit of stopping to listen to real sounds to try to understand the character, relative to reproduced sound. When I'm passing a street musician playing, for instance, acoustic guitar when I stop, close my eyes, listen and ask myself "why does this sound so obviously LIVE, like a real guitar being played in front of me and not a sound system" one of the things that always sticks out is the sense of "micro dynamics" - that there seems to be a sense of dynamic variation in the picking of the strings that says "live person playing this instrument" where this aspect seems often somewhat flattened and homogenized somewhat, in acoustic guitar recordings.

And I've encountered some playback systems that seemed to recreate that micro dynamic life more convincingly than others, IMO. So I, and many other listeners, do find these words and distinctions to be identifying something useful.

So what you mean is linearity of the transfer function?

 

[Anthony101]

 

[MattHooper]

So what you mean is linearity of the transfer function?

Could be.

One could also say that "sweet" or "sweetness" is "The perceived intensity of sugars and sweeteners" or some such description.
In any case, they are different ways of referring to the phenomenon - something that actually exists that we can perceive. Just as you could discuss the characteristics of a yummy meal by using common descriptors...or you could talk about it in terms of it's chemical composition.

 

[Larry B. Larabee]

Where did you read about that?

I can't remember it was so long ago. Still, there must be something about it on the net.

 

[sarumbear]

Could be.

One could also say that "sweet" or "sweetness" is "The perceived intensity of sugars and sweeteners" or some such description.
In any case, they are different ways of referring to the phenomenon - something that actually exists that we can perceive.

May I remind you the name of the forum. It says science. Wouldn’t it make sense to use scientific terms to explain physical phenomenon?

 

[Bill Brown]

There's phase information in low frequencies that allow you to discern location.

I am curious how that works at a fundamental level. Certainly there are phase interactions amongst the low frequency radiators, it is one of the ways that multi-sub setups work, but again:

"Above the “first mode” region lays the “modal region”. Here is where multiple subs are more than desirable, they are basically essential. Above the modal region lies the “statistical region” where all rooms, regardless of size or shape, act exactly the same. It is in this region that we can begin to talk about things like wall reflections and transients. These features simply do not exist in the modal region and below. The wavelengths are such that the sound has typically bounced around the room dozens of times before a single period has elapsed and the ear can even begin to recognize anything remotely connected to a pitch. For this reason all that we can ever talk about in the LF region of a room is its steady state response. Nothing else even makes sense."

http://www.gedlee.com/Papers/multiple subs.pdf

I am curious about a refutation of this.

Bill

 

[sarumbear]

I can't remember it was so long ago. Still, there must be something about it on the net.

I bet there is. The Net is full of wrong information. As an electro-acoustic engineer I can assure you that what you say is wrong.

 

[sarumbear]

I am curious how that works at a fundamental level. Certainly there are phase interactions amongst the low frequency radiators, it is one of the ways that multi-sub setups work, but again:

"Above the “first mode” region lays the “modal region”. Here is where multiple subs are more than desirable, they are basically essential. Above the modal region lies the “statistical region” where all rooms, regardless of size or shape, act exactly the same. It is in this region that we can begin to talk about things like wall reflections and transients. These features simply do not exist in the modal region and below. The wavelengths are such that the sound has typically bounced around the room dozens of times before a single period has elapsed and the ear can even begin to recognize anything remotely connected to a pitch. For this reason all that we can ever talk about in the LF region of a room is its steady state response. Nothing else even makes sense."

http://www.gedlee.com/Papers/multiple subs.pdf

I am curious about a refutation of this.

Bill

Almost nothing you said has any engineering or scientific meaning. Phases do not interact. Sound doesn’t bounce around the room. There is no statistical region. Etc.

 

[MattHooper]

May I remind you the name of the forum. It says science. Wouldn’t it make sense to use scientific terms to explain physical phenomenon?

So all subjective descriptions are off the table? No sonic phenomena can be referenced in ways other than...measurements, maybe? Not sure what exactly you are advocating.

I believe very few here want this to become the Hydrogen Audio Forum 2.0, and most seem to accept that we aren't always "doing science" here in the forum discussions (in fact, more often we aren't), and that subjective descriptions can be reasonably employed.

You may want to take your complaint up with the owner of the forum: See Amirm's reviews for instance in which he employs informal subjective descriptions in the listening tests.

 

[sarumbear]

So all subjective descriptions are off the table? No sonic phenomena can be referenced in ways other than...measurements, maybe? Not sure what exactly you are advocating.

I believe very few here want this to become the Hydrogen Audio Forum 2.0, and that subjective descriptions can be reasonably employed. (See Amirm's reviews for instance in which he employs informal subjective descriptions in the listening tests....you may want to take your complaint up with the owner of the forum).

I didn’t say nor imply that. Your long explanation is a known and measurable phenomena. It is an objective quality that is called linearity of the transfer function. It’s subjective when two devices measure the same but sound different. You have not even measured anything, but talking about the possibility of subjective difference. That shouldn’t be the way we discuss on a forum based on science.

 

[Larry B. Larabee]

I bet there is. The Net is full of wrong information. As an electro-acoustic engineer I can assure you that what you say is wrong.

Back in the old days reviewers always talked about frequency doubling when talking about low frequency response in speakers. Your ear perceives the fundamental frequency being there simply by reconstructing the harmonic content of the sound. Psycho-acoustics apply to my previous claim about being able to localize what appears to be an omnidirectional sound source. Did you bother to look to see if there is any validity in what I said or was that just an off the cuff remark.

 

[Bill Brown]

Almost nothing you said has any engineering or scientific meaning. Phases do not interact. Sound doesn’t bounce around the room. There is no statistical region. Etc.

Please click on the link. The writer is well-respected. I think he did his PhD in this field. He and Olive are the main developers/proponents (separately) of the multi-sub concept for domestic reproduction. What I copied is a quote from him, not my words. I am beginning to think you might be the one without clear understanding when you say "has no engineering or scientific meaning."

I'll bow out. I have a basic understanding of the concepts, but can't argue it from first principles like I would like. Further comments from me would simply be an appeal to authority as opposed to your degrees. I do think an interesting debate could be had with him, though. For now I will stick with a known quantity I have followed for years and watch for reasoned contrary data/explanations.

Bill