Does higher resolution of mid to treble = elevated decibel output = brighter sound?

[dualazmak]

Great points all.

What I am interested is under what measurement can tell the difference between guitar and lute when their frequency reponses are almost identital when play the same note. 3D Time-Fq-Gain spectrum method mentioned above seems to be one of them. Apart from that is there any other full spectrum measurement would be as close as how human hearing processes sound signal?

At least based on my experiences and actual measurements, so far I could find no other better methods (can be easily utilized by us i.e. non-professional audio enthusiasts) than the 3D Time-Fq-Gain spectrum (voiceprint/soundprint) fit for your (our) specific objectives.

And,,, sorry to be out of the scope of this thread, but...
I would like to invite you visiting and participating on my independent thread entitled "Lute Music and Other Early Music: Stunning Recordings We Love".

 

[w0203j]

We already have key information in the horizontal and vertical normalized curves and polar maps. These account for the primary sound characteristics. These tell us so much about how the speakers perform, and are so impactful, that everything else, distortion, phase, group delay, falls into a distant second place of importance.

Maybe we should step back a bit in measuring speaker but rather measuring sound in general. Speaker like music instrument produce sound. How can we realibly measuring sound as if it's precived by human hearing? What instrumentation is able to tell the difference between guitar and lute when human could easily tell the diffs.

 

[dualazmak]

Just for all of your reference and interest...

The mentioned 3D Time-Fq-Gain spectrum charts (voiceprints/soundprints) are widely utilized in organizations of police and justice for identification of recorded voice to a specific individual. They even use the method to identify sound of gun-shot to a specific gun; please remember that even 44.1 kHz 16 bit CD red-book format, we can easily go down to micro-second precision in time domain (i.e. we can easily expand the X-axis time-scale to micro-second precision level).

This is exactly the same method as we can apply for objective visual observation of differences of guitar sound and lute sound.

Furthermore, using the sound analysis software like ADOBE Audition, SOUND FORGE Pro Suite, STEINBERG SpectraLayers, as well as their (I mean police and justice departments) much more advanced professional sound analysis software, we can also effectively suppress (or eliminate) rather high amount of noise components to extract "voiceprints" for easy identification to a specific individual (or music instrument); for example, I myself rather easily could do this using ADOBE Audition 3.0.1 and its convenient noise-capture-suppression functionalities.

 

[voodooless]

All the standard measurements we already have for speakers should suffice, just fine. We have a CSD waterfall plot, which is comparable to the 3D Time-Fq-Gain spectrum, just much more standardized and tailored to measuring speakers. REW additionally has a spectrogram to show you parts of the room interactions. The rest are on-axis and off-axis frequency response measurements, step response, distortion, and a few more. What more do you want?

I'm sure you can utilize a 3D Time-Fq-Gain spectrum for speakers just fine, and if you're familiar with the procedures, it's probably a fine tool, but I don't see what it would add to everything we already have, other than the convenience to the people who are already familiar with it.

 

[dualazmak]

All the standard measurements we already have for speakers should suffice, just fine. We have a CSD waterfall plot, which is comparable to the 3D Time-Fq-Gain spectrum, just much more standardized and tailored to measuring speakers. REW additionally has a spectrogram to show you parts of the room interactions. The rest are on-axis and off-axis frequency response measurements, step response, distortion, and a few more. What more do you want?

I'm sure you can utilize a 3D Time-Fq-Gain spectrum for speakers just fine, and if you're familiar with the procedures, it's probably a fine tool, but I don't see what it would add to everything we already have, other than the convenience to the people who are already familiar with it.

Essentially agree with you.
I too occasionally use REW for various measurements and tunings of my audio system and room acoustic environment.

I really would like to have/use, however, completely independent methods/tools outside of REW which could be well validated (by myself) and easy to be understood (i.e. no black-box at-all at least to myself) and highly reproducible; and I would like to compare the results thereof with those given by REW, for example just like I did in my post here and here for time alignment tunings among the multiple SP drivers.

Edit:
As we have recently discussed here (post by @levimax) and here plus thereafter, REW would not be always almighty, and this is one of the reasons at least for me that I need independent validated methods.

 

[Curvature]

Great points all.

What I am interested is under what measurement can tell the difference between guitar and lute when their frequency reponses are almost identital when play the same note. 3D Time-Fq-Gain spectrum method mentioned above seems to be one of them. Apart from that is there any other full spectrum measurement would be as close as how human hearing processes sound signal?

Do you mean guitar vs. lute in absolute terms? Or to evaluate the difference between speaker sound?

 

[dualazmak]

Do you mean guitar vs. lute in absolute terms? Or to evaluate the difference between speaker sound?

If you would give the same question to me, my answer is "I mean both"!
Edit:
Guitar vs. lute, one cello vs. another, one Stradivarius vs. another, Steinway vs. Bösendorfer, Yamaha vs. Kawai, SP-A vs. SP-A', SP-A vs. SP-B, ...

 

[dualazmak]

Now, I believe I should calm down myself on this thread.
I will soon be getting out from this thread, at least for a while, a week or so...
Please PM me, therefore, if needed.

 

[voodooless]

I think in the case of guitar vs lute, frequency response would be more than enough to characterize most of the differences. They would be nowhere similar enough to warrant more complex tools.

 

[BossBunos]

Since a while I'm into DIY speaker building. It started with the mechano23. There after I designed some speakers of my own. My regular speakers are the Salon2's. What I found is that my own speaker sounds rather dark and less open that the salon2. For lack of better description the salon2 sounds more real/live without being bright. I think this has mainly to do with the sound power in the upper mid/treble region. An elevated on axis response in the treble region would be perceived as bright. However both speakers show an on axis response that is almost flat. The total power is substantially higher from 2khz and up on the salon2. This energy is radiated into the room and via reflections received at the listening position. So the total energy is higher in this frequency range resulting in an increased sense of detail while the on axis energy is the same and therefore not perceived as bright. I included both spins to show the difference. As you can see by the sound power directivity index my speaker loses 9 DB up to 10khz while the salon loses 6db. 3db sound power in the treble is quite significant.