What's Left In Speaker Design To Reduce Distortion/Increase Detail Retrieval?

[Travis]

So he found smooth flat on axis response and smooth declining off axis response and low resonances. They found resonances lowered preference.

Has the off-axis response been fleshed out in some objective way. Directivity index, something else, or is this an area that needs (or is possible), of more refinement?

 

[Doodski]

That term isn’t considered a slur in Canada? It is in the US and the UK. Don’t think I have heard or seen that publicly used in thirty years.

I am as uneducated on the topic as can humanly be. So if I have used something let me know.
EDIT: What specific word is the issue?

 

[IPunchCholla]

I am as uneducated on the topic as can humanly be. So if I have used something let me know.
EDIT: What specific word is the issue?

Colored is, not exactly a slur, but dated and insensitive? Black or people of color (POC) are most commonly used.

 

[NattyLumpkins]

That's a great tool. Thanks for posting that. I imagine flesh tones are very good after a calibration.

They do and when I did professional photo work, having a well calibrated monitor gives you peace of mind.

 

[Doodski]

Colored is, not exactly a slur, but dated and insensitive? Black or people of color (POC) are most commonly used.

Ahhh... IC OK I'll tweak it for max acceptance.

 

[Doodski]

Colored is, not exactly a slur, but dated and insensitive? Black or people of color (POC) are most commonly used.

OK I tweaked it a bit. Can you please review it and see if it passes the test?

What's Left In Speaker Design To Reduce Distortion/Increase Detail Retrieval?

Yes, it has been going on for a significant time. I think the studio quality time and recordings need to improve. Good speakers sound good but bad recording sound bad and good speakers help with bad recordings but there's only so much that can be done. There are some really great recordings out...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Doodski]

They do and when I did professional photo work, having a well calibrated monitor gives you peace of mind.

I found the newest and most reasonably priced monitor for 27" 1440p FPS 166Hz gaming and then I read a test review and it's rated near perfect right out of the box. The best I've ever owned and it shows well in colors and black levels that are not detectable to my eye.

 

[Doodski]

It’s most certainly a slur in the US and the UK, it’s beyond debate. Not to the level of that other word, but it simply isn’t used.

Without belaboring it, this article will explain everything you need to know, and how an actor had to issue an apology for using the word on US television.

Warning: Why using the term 'coloured' is offensive

As Benedict Cumberbatch says sorry for using the word to describe black actors, we look at the history of the word and why it is offensive.

www.bbc.com

Better?

What's Left In Speaker Design To Reduce Distortion/Increase Detail Retrieval?

Yes, it has been going on for a significant time. I think the studio quality time and recordings need to improve. Good speakers sound good but bad recording sound bad and good speakers help with bad recordings but there's only so much that can be done. There are some really great recordings out...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Blumlein 88]

Has the off-axis response been fleshed out in some objective way. Directivity index, something else, or is this an area that needs (or is possible), of more refinement?

Toole's work at the NRC and later Harman to their surprise found the directivity was at the core of what made a good speaker after you have flat on axis response. I don't know that no work is left to do in that area, but it has been pretty thoroughly tested via blind listening tests in all sorts of ways. The directivity measurement that gives a spin-or-rama was a result of this work. 10 degree measurements in a vertical and horizontal circle for 72 measuring points. It is the source of the charts Amir has in his reviews using the Klippel measuring device.

 

[Travis]

Toole's work at the NRC and later Harman to their surprise found the directivity was at the core of what made a good speaker after you have flat on axis response. I don't know that no work is left to do in that area, but it has been pretty thoroughly tested via blind listening tests in all sorts of ways. The directivity measurement that gives a spin-or-rama was a result of this work. 10 degree measurements in a vertical and horizontal circle for 72 measuring points. It is the source of the charts Amir has in his reviews using the Klippel measuring device.

I get that, did Toole, Olive, or anyone else come up with some numbers, like a directivity of at least X, or. DI of at least Y is statistically significant?

 

[Travis]

Another view on What’s Left from J.J.’s @j_j
Heyser Lecture

What’s left?
•Array microphones
•Array speakers (not just wavefield synthesis)
•Perceptual soundfield capture
•Perceptual soundfield synthesis
•Capture and representation of soundfield parameters in PERCEPTUAL TERMS
•Object oriented audio
•A whole bunch of other stuff

 

[Rille]

Det finns några riktigt bra inspelningar där ute gjorda med en enda stereomikrofon, eller bara 2 eller 3 mikrofoner. Kanske måste vi gå tillbaka till grunderna.

You are right. In real life we use time differens and amplitude differens to place a sound. We dont get timedifferens with paned mono. We do get timedifferens with 2 microphones/A-B stereo and correkt amplitude.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I get that, did Toole, Olive, or anyone else come up with some numbers, like a directivity of at least X, or. DI of at least Y is statistically significant?

Yes, it was statistically significant. They didn't just come up with the numbers, the results pointed them to find what kind of directivity gave preferred results. Further work indicated this preference held up for different kinds of music, different nationalities of listeners and other things. So it is not just someone's idea of what works. It is the result of trying to find out what works. The result of testing to model what performance target results in a speaker that sounds the best to most people.

Prior to this work, many theorized a flat power response in all directions would be optimum. That turned out not to be the case.

 

[tuga]

Another view on What’s Left from J.J.’s @j_j
Heyser Lecture

What’s left?
•Array microphones
•Array speakers (not just wavefield synthesis)
•Perceptual soundfield capture
•Perceptual soundfield synthesis
•Capture and representation of soundfield parameters in PERCEPTUAL TERMS
•Object oriented audio
•A whole bunch of other stuff

I think that you're veering way off-topic.

99.9% of all music recordings are have been distributed for 2-channel stereo reproduction.
How can we improve the transduction of those recordings?
In other words, what scope is there to improve loudspeaker performance?

 

[FrankW]

What's Left In Speaker Design To Reduce Distortion/Increase Detail Retrieval? This question popped in to my mind simply from some recent experience listening to some speakers at another audiophile's place. big ol' Estelon speakers, $65K. they just seemed to obviously dig out more sonic information in the recordings. drums on a track on my system would be well placed in spatial terms, and I can hear if the drums were placed in a reverb.
You've pegged me again Frank. I'm just a naive subjectivist who had no inkling of any such variables until you came along.

Well....that is you posting all that, correct? No one had asked about brand, price, materials, etc at that point...all things Matt thought important to "mention".

What point do you think you are possibly making there? Of course we need transduction to sound waves to hear the recorded content. That's the issue. And for accuracy sake

Bingo. Like "details" to be "retrieved". Audibility. What reference/absolute audible transduction "in the recording" are you comparing your transduced retrieval to for "details" "accuracy"? Never mind the complete illogic of stereophonic "accuracy" (explained to you many times)

(which many here are seeking) you'd want to do that with as little distortion as possible.

Wrong.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...than-digital-right.37657/page-23#post-1529935
https://www.klippel.de/fileadmin/kl...on caused by design_part 1_Klippel_Werner.pdf

Some distortion which are audible might be still acceptable or even desirable in some applications

Ok, I'm finished feeding you. You've had multiple opportunities to lift yourself out of Troll mode.

Matt, resorting to Trolling insults again when your subjectivism unravels under any Flat Earther scrutiny, not good for your learning.

 

[FrankW]

I think that you're veering way off-topic.

99.9% of all music recordings are have been distributed for 2-channel stereo reproduction.
How can we improve the transduction of those recordings?
In other words, what scope is there to improve loudspeaker performance?

It's perfectly on topic since there is a conspicuous absence of speaker "distortions". Similar to Matt ignoring a "scarily real" demo 20+ years ago without "low distortion" speakers.
That of course doesn't mean speakers can't be "improved". But they may very well have been sufficient even 20+ years ago, using very modest drive units...but instead, focused on number, placement and far far more importantly, type of encode/decode/environment for transduction.
Btw, nothing preventing Matt et al from visiting JJ's new facility to see how "low distortion" his current speakers are. Vs say, a big ol $65k magic materials Estelon.
Just sayin..
Ok, for stereo itself? Seems Toole agrees with JJ (says "indirect" radiation needed) somewhat about the speakers (and adds acoustics variability). Of course even there, preferences will vary.

 

[tuga]

It's perfectly on topic since there is a conspicuous absence of speaker "distortions". Similar to Matt ignoring a "scarily real" demo 20+ years ago without "low distortion" speakers.
That of course doesn't mean speakers can't be "improved". But they may very well have been sufficient even 20+ years ago, using very modest drive units...but instead, focused on number, placement and far far more importantly, type of encode/decode/environment for transduction.
Btw, nothing preventing Matt et al from visiting JJ's new facility to see how "low distortion" his current speakers are. Vs say, a big ol $65k magic materials Estelon.
Just sayin..

Focusing on number of speakers is a separate issue from loudspeaker performance (accruacy), and one that is off topic in my view, same with discussing mic'ing techniques.
I don't buy into the below-audibility blanket statements with the existing threshold studies.

 

[teashea]

This question popped in to my mind simply from some recent experience listening to some speakers at another audiophile's place.

I currently listen to some smaller floor standing speakers with good quality drivers (Joseph Audio Perspective 2 Graphene) and I find there to be a gob-smacking sense of clarity
and detail in to recordings. Along the lines of "how could it get better than this?" (And I've heard lots of other speakers).

Then I go over to my Pal's place and listen to a pair of big ol' Estelon speakers, one of the newer "it" brands in high end audio circles. I forget which new model, but they retail for something like $65K. Now, most of us have had plenty of experiences showing us that money doesn't necessarily buy you any better sound in high end audio. But I have to say, even though the presentation ultimately wasn't to my liking as much as my own system, they just seemed to obviously dig out more sonic information in the recordings. So for instance drums on a track on my system would be well placed in spatial terms, and I can hear if the drums were placed in a reverb. But the Estelon speakers just seem to effortlessly carve out precisely where the drums are in the soundstage and the precise acoustics or added reverb around the drums...and exactly where that reverb "ends" is more vivid and obvious. Basically there is this constant sense of more sonic information, presenting more precision about what is in the recording.

Which had me wondering what accounted for these differences. Better drivers? The more heroic efforts that went in to removing the influence of the Estelon cabinets? The whole design?

Now, that's just accounting for why this question was on my mind. Anyone can simply ignore the above example (it's just my subjective impressions after all) but still get to the issue I'm wondering about:

What is left in terms of speaker design to achieve, in terms of lowering audible distortion and hence retrieving more neutral sonic information from recordings?

(I add "neutral" because of course one can always hype a speaker's high frequency response to increase perceived detail...that's not what I'm talking about).

Are we done? Or is there more to achieve in terms of materials and design (drivers, cabinets etc)? Is a very flat frequency response all there is (since resonances will purportedly show up in frequency response)? Or could we take a speaker that measures very even, yet some upgrade in driver material/design or even more reduction in cabinet resonances may yield even higher sonic performance, retrieving some subtle details that were obscured before?

Where can we go from here?

Great topic to discuss. As far a studio monitors go, the new Neumann KJ 150's and KH 120 II leave just about nothing to be desired for nearfield monitors.

 

[MattHooper]

------------------------------------

(which many here are seeking) you'd want to do that with as little distortion as possible.

Wrong.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...than-digital-right.37657/page-23#post-1529935
https://www.klippel.de/fileadmin/kl...on caused by design_part 1_Klippel_Werner.pdf

Some distortion which are audible might be still acceptable or even desirable in some applications

------------------------------------


LOL. Of course, FrankW cut off the relevant part of my comment: And for accuracy sake (which many here are seeking) you'd want to do that with as little distortion as possible.

The fact some people some time may *prefer* some type of distortion doesn't mean others aren't seeking more accuracy, nor does it address the current question of if/how we can make loudspeakers more accurate/reduce distortion. The question he keeps avoiding.

Apparently FrankW skipped the intro of the very link he keeps posting. From the Klippel paper:


1. Introduction

The target of an audio reproduction system is to generate at the listening position an output
signal pout (t) which is similar to the input signal pin (t) at the source point. The difference
between the two time signals may be considered as a distortion signal pdist (t)=pout (t) - p in (t)
generated somewhere in the audio chain. After introducing digital signal processing,
transmission and data storage the weakest part is the electro-acoustical conversion
(loudspeaker) and in the interaction with a acoustical environment (room).



I leave it to FrankW to argue with the Klippel people about the general goals of speaker design, with other ASR members that they do not care about accuracy in their loudspeakers, and that accuracy is a useless goal.

 

[Travis]

Yes, it was statistically significant. They didn't just come up with the numbers, the results pointed them to find what kind of directivity gave preferred results. Further work indicated this preference held up for different kinds of music, different nationalities of listeners and other things.

Thank you so much. Do you happen to know what that directivity was, or name/citation of the paper(s) that was published in?