• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Is nonlinear distortion of (small) speakers unimportant??

OP
pma

pma

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 23, 2019
Messages
4,591
Likes
10,728
Location
Prague
What happened to Focal? Did they get bought out? I saw some newish low-mid range models at a local store a while back and got excited, until I looked hard at them- they were really cheaply made.

Yes, you are right
in 2014, Vervent Audio Group was created: the ‘Focal&Naim’ group was acquired by its managers and a private equity firm. As for Jacques Mahul, he relinquished his shares and became Vice-President of the board of directors. He left the group for good at the end of the same year. Vervent Audio Group is a European leader in high-end audio, and had a turnover of 82 million euros in 2015.

https://www.focal.com/en/en-dates-and-history-focal
 

Wombat

Master Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
6,722
Likes
6,459
Location
Australia
What happened to Focal? Did they get bought out? I saw some newish low-mid range models at a local store a while back and got excited, until I looked hard at them- they were really cheaply made.


Still around: https://www.focal.com/en/home-audio/high-fidelity-speakers - design and development in France.

Some high-end models are manufactured in France: https://www.focal.com/en/french-manufacturing

If you come to Melbourne: https://www.stereophonic.com.au/brands/Focal-Speakers.html
 

Hiten

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2019
Messages
367
Likes
479
Location
India
I searched the web to see vintage driver measurements. Found one. Link
Not sure but I think considering this pioneer driver would be 40/50 years I only see peak in response from 500hz to 2000hz in latest measurement. regardless of its response, not bad for driver this old to hold on to most of the specs. Isn't it ? The three peaks after approx 4000hz is almost same as original.
I have also rather very crudely overlapped the Original and new measurement graphs. Horizontal fq. response image was stretched to meet the scale. vertical I dont know at what level original was measured. The thick grey line is original measurements on axis and red line one more recent. Or you can follow original link. If possible kindly give comments about differences and possible causes.
Thanks and regards
 

Attachments

  • speaker.jpg
    speaker.jpg
    601.5 KB · Views: 116

QMuse

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 20, 2020
Messages
3,124
Likes
2,785
Acoustic suspension, infinite baffle relatively interchangeable terms.

Not really - infinte baffle is a design where the front and rear waves never meet. Not really the same design as acoustic suspension where drivers are mounted in a sealed box.
 

QMuse

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 20, 2020
Messages
3,124
Likes
2,785
My understanding is a bit different to that, FWIW.
Infinite baffle, at least historically, meant isolating the back wave by an essentially infinite physical barrier -- e.g., a wall.

Transmission line designs are also effectively infinite baffle as backward driver radiation is routed through the pipes/tunnels typically to the bottom of the box so they practically don't interfere with front radiation.
 

QMuse

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 20, 2020
Messages
3,124
Likes
2,785
But even the best small woofer will find it impossible to keep up with any decent larger woofer (in the midrange I mean) when asked to also reproduce high SPLs in the low frequencies.

This is one of the concerns I have about the way CEA-2034 specs distortion measurements. I don't think they tell us much at all really about how a speaker might sound.

Once a driver is pushed to a point of excessive excursion it will not be able to play anything without distorion and asking small woofer to produce low bass even at moderate levels will lead to excessive driver excursion. CEA-2034 spec distorion measurement doesn't stress speakers enough to cause that so it is not very usefull.
 

q3cpma

Major Contributor
Joined
May 22, 2019
Messages
3,060
Likes
4,416
Location
France
These days? Small speakers have been good for many, many decades. Nothing new or amazing "these days". Amazing for their size, but that's it- no substitute for full range, large drivers and proper midranges. Real audiophiles never p#ssed around with little speakers pretending they were anything other than a massive compromise. Nobody bought a small two way as an end-game speaker.

People were realistic and not duped by group-think like they are so often "these days". Look at the Pioneer Andrew Jones hype train- they are an utterly dreadful speaker, no two ways about it. Even for a toy speaker, they are shocking.

Single small speaker in a room demonstrations playing audiophile essential wimpering female "singers" or some "unplugged" acoustic garbage, enable mutton dressed up as lamb to be sold to the gullible. Put them side by side with the real speakers and it all falls apart very quickly.

Active speakers have been around for many decades, as has motional feedback and DSP. It has evolved now to the point where you can get a whole lot of tech shoved in shoe box that sounds good for the money. That's a good thing, but having grown men fawn on a forum over "toy"* speakers is a bit like arguing about which VW Polo goes the fastest to 60mph on a V8 performance car chat site.

*I agree with Pavel and his designation of toy speakers. I may have used it myself on a number of occasions. Henceforth, I propose any 2-way speaker with a single mid-bass driver smaller than 6.5" should be classified as a "toy" speaker.
As I said, size and clean bass do matter a lot but subwoofers exist. It's just that the word "toy" seems improper when comparing something like a rock solid Genelec (even if small) and a big hifi speaker that is often unreliable and prone to be broken by the elements (cats, children, clumsy people) because they focused too much on form and not enough on function.
Calling it a compromise is more mature and accurate.
While I agree that the technology hasn't evolved that much, incremental improvements have been made; computer based FEA is the real new thing, helping design drivers, enclosures or waveguides/horns better.
 

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,755
Likes
16,215
Can I suggest some intermodulation distortion tests at a reasonable excursion to demonstrate what happens to the midrange THD when modulated by the low frequencies? :)
Neumann has some nice IMD charts which show the advantage of 3-way vs. 2-way and that even a large and very clean loudspeaker like the KH420 improves there when highpassfiltered and combined with a subwoofer, unfortunately the site seems down right now http://www.neumann-kh-line.com/neum...9025D8C4F126AD8C12578B2003A71E9?Open&term=TIM so for now some of my own IMD measurements of a 2 way Genelec vs. a 3-way JBL (of course the second is quite larger, but I had done also similar measurements with my KEF LS50 vs a compact 1970s 3-way speaker and the differences were similar, just cant find those measurements right now)
1.png
 

tuga

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
3,984
Likes
4,281
Location
Oxford, England
We would also need to think about whether the test is seeking a listener preference A/B or identity A/B/X.

Listener preference only makes sense if you use trained and educated listeners.
The general public (and even a few audiophiles) have primitive tastes and expectations; advanced audiophiles should be aiming for higher fidelity.

Which by the way is why it I think it would be important to perform/produce more measurement other than just the on- and off-axis FR measurements.
Toole doesn't care about CSD plots but he is probably alone in that stance.



lJf4tV8.png
 
Last edited:

tuga

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
3,984
Likes
4,281
Location
Oxford, England
Neumann has some nice IMD charts which show the advantage of 3-way vs. 2-way and that even a large and very clean loudspeaker like the KH420 improves there when highpassfiltered and combined with a subwoofer, unfortunately the site seems down right now http://www.neumann-kh-line.com/neum...9025D8C4F126AD8C12578B2003A71E9?Open&term=TIM so for now some of my own IMD measurements of a 2 way Genelec vs. a 3-way JBL (of course the second is quite larger, but I had done also similar measurements with my KEF LS50 vs a compact 1970s 3-way speaker and the differences were similar, just cant find those measurements right now)
View attachment 51646

I've attached a PDF of that piece earlier in the thread:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...small-speakers-unimportant.11659/#post-335673
 

Wombat

Master Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
6,722
Likes
6,459
Location
Australia
Listener preference only makes sense if you use trained and educated listeners.
The general public (and even a few audiophiles) have primitive tastes and expectations; advanced audiophiles should be aiming for higher fidelity.

Which by the way is why it is important to perform/produce more measurement other than just the on- and off-axis FR measurements.
Toole doesn't care about CSD plots but he is probably alone in that stance.



lJf4tV8.png

That is a single result and a skewed small sample of listeners. Untrained probably gives a random spread and trained a more narrow result that includes training regimentation.
The topic is more complex than simplifying it as presented.
 

QMuse

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 20, 2020
Messages
3,124
Likes
2,785
Toole doesn't care about CSD plots but he is probably alone in that stance.

Truth is Toole doesn't care about CSD "hills" which don't correlate with FR spikes. And for what I know there is absolutely no indication that he is wrong about that. Can you reference some studies proving different?
 

tuga

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
3,984
Likes
4,281
Location
Oxford, England
That is a single result and a skewed small sample of listeners. Untrained probably gives a random spread and trained a more narrow result that includes training regimentation.
The topic is more complex than simplifying it as presented.

I agree about the complexity. Yet I am convinced that untrained listeners' preferences are useless in the scope of higher fidelity.

I don't think it's only a matter of training (on what to listen for) to be honest. Someone who only listens to pop rock will likely have different requirements and expectations from someone who prefers techno, heavy-metal or classical.

It makes sense for a manufacturer to use untrained listeners because he can use his findings to "tailor" the response of their budget line to that particular segment of the market. But we should be aiming higher (and have no commercial interests anyway).
 
Last edited:

tuga

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
3,984
Likes
4,281
Location
Oxford, England
Truth is Toole doesn't care about CSD "hills" which don't correlate with FR spikes. And for what I know there is absolutely no indication that he is wrong about that. Can you reference some studies proving different?

Not that I know of. But did Toole publish anything that supports his not caring about CSD "hills" which don't correlate with FR spikes?

It is difficult to discuss things if you're on Toole blinkers. Your discussion about resonances with Frank Dernie is a case in point. If I remember correctly he worked for Garrard on resonances. Just because he didn't publish any research there is a fair chance that he has a lot o experience in the subject.
 

QMuse

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 20, 2020
Messages
3,124
Likes
2,785
Not that I know of. But did Toole publish anything that supports his not caring about CSD "hills" which don't correlate with FR spikes?

Yes he did. And it has been posted more than few times on this forum, so go and search for it.

It is difficult to discuss things if you're on Toole blinkers. Your discussion about resonances with Frank Dernie is a case in point. If I remember correctly he worked for Garrard on resonances. Just because he didn't publish any research there is a fair chance that he has a lot o experience in the subject.

Frank's work with Garrad hardly had anyything to do with the audibility of cabinet resonances. And even if it did, with science it is the research and confirmation that matters and not what somebody did for living.
 

tuga

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
3,984
Likes
4,281
Location
Oxford, England
Yes he did. And it has been posted more than few times on this forum, so go and search for it.

I am re-reading the 1988 paper. It looks like the sample was of a mere 4 listeners, though he does quote work by others.
 
Top Bottom