Is transient response the most important thing for the perceived audio quality in a system ?

[Tangband]

With single driver speakers the transient response is completely described by the frequency response (magnitude and phase). With multiple drivers you also need to make them coherent, so as to simulate a single source. When taking a frequency response measurement of a speaker, only one driver it typically playing at any point in time (except for the crossover regions), however, with most acoustic or musical transients, all drivers play together.

Hmm… I also wondering if a stiff loudspeaker cone ( like metal ) in a good driver are better with transients than softer ones.

 

[Tangband]

Wrong, most mics are not flat and roll off the HF. This means an inaccurate transient in many cases.
If you want to test for transient response use an impulse.

I use omni microphones thats flat within +-1 dB 20-20000 Hz. But sure, there are many microphones that have horrible freq responses - just as common as bad loudspeakers.

 

[HarmonicTHD]

Hmm… I also wondering if a stiff loudspeaker cone ( like metal ) in a good driver are better with transients than softer ones.

Look at their FR as already stated in post 2. To my knowledge all decent driver manufactures publish FRs.

 

[Waxx]

It depends on the type of music, classical music uses very clean wide bandwith microphones like those of Schoeps. But for pop or rock or even jazz those are not good, and people prefer coloured microphones like the infamous Neumann condensors. But both don't go much above 20kHz as it's not needed for our ears (that cut off lower).

And a part in the disagreement is also the different definition of "transient" in audio production or audio engineering. In production it means the first part of the attack of the signal, that is often very strong. And that you can hear. The transients where Amir was refering to (i have the impression at least) are what in the audio production is called the overtones, and those are out of our hearing once above a certaub frequency and so irrelevant for loudspeakers aimed at humans...

 

[Neuro]

This is a typical example where the thread creator cannot separate the subjective psychological domain from the objective physical domain. The word transient has a completely different meaning depending on the context.
I suspect that the thread creator is referring to the psychological perception of transient sound which is something completely different than a transient measurable in the physical dimension.
Floyd Toole refers to a tight, solid, and distinct bass as something a loudspeaker should deliver. Old JBL L-100 and L-200 but not L-300 could deliver a transient bass in my experience. This can be simulated with a PEQ and a linear loudspeaker down to 20 Hz. Perceived transient music when played on a pair of JBL L100 can be reproduced on a linear loudspeaker if you copy the frequency curve and add some distortion. The JBL L300 reproduces lower frequencies than the L100 and masks the slightly higher frequencies in the bass. The bass is perceived as less transient when there are lower frequencies.
Less dense music with a prominent initial attack that triggers the precedence effects is perceived as more transient in the higher frequencies.
The perception of a transient sound can be expanded in the physical dimension but is not a physical transient.

Again, it is important to understand that we perceive a transient sound in the psychological dimension and we can measure a transient in the physical dimension. In this context, it's two different entities and should not be mixed.

 

[Tim Link]

IMO transient response is not important for consumers. It takes well trained ears, btw, to be able to judge transient quality (which is not about hearing a plucky ADSR-curve, but the sound character of the attack itself). It is important in the production and mixing process, especially with ITB mixing: a good transient response of the speakers is not only necessary to be able to judge the right amount of compression and the attack time, but also the necessary amount of artificial saturation and other transient softening processes, to make the mix sound like a record.

IMO for the listening pleasure of consumers, the biggest factor is room acoustics (time domain) and a well balanced overall frequency response and within especially a well balanced midrange.

I agree. Transient response that really perceptually slows or slurs the sound is happening at much longer time intervals than I originally thought. It's more along the lines of room surface reflections and resonances, and maybe speaker cabinet resonances than anything to do with the speed of the speaker drivers, or time arrival differences from the tweeter and the woofer.

 

[Keith_W]

This is a typical example where the thread creator cannot separate the subjective psychological domain from the objective physical domain. The word transient has a completely different meaning depending on the context.
I suspect that the thread creator is referring to the psychological perception of transient sound which is something completely different than a transient measurable in the physical dimension.
Floyd Toole refers to a tight, solid, and distinct bass as something a loudspeaker should deliver. Old JBL L-100 and L-200 but not L-300 could deliver a transient bass in my experience. This can be simulated with a PEQ and a linear loudspeaker down to 20 Hz. Perceived transient music when played on a pair of JBL L100 can be reproduced on a linear loudspeaker if you copy the frequency curve and add some distortion. The JBL L300 reproduces lower frequencies than the L100 and masks the slightly higher frequencies in the bass. The bass is perceived as less transient when there are lower frequencies.
Less dense music with a prominent initial attack that triggers the precedence effects is perceived as more transient in the higher frequencies.
The perception of a transient sound can be expanded in the physical dimension but is not a physical transient.

Again, it is important to understand that we perceive a transient sound in the psychological dimension and we can measure a transient in the physical dimension. In this context, it's two different entities and should not be mixed.

Can you please say that again, but more slowly for dimwits like me . I read and re-read it several times and I am not sure I understand your meaning. Are you saying that the psychological perception of transients in the bass is created by higher order harmonics? If so, how important is it that the high order harmonics are time aligned with the bass note?

 

[RayDunzl]

the transient response is completely described by the frequency response (magnitude and phase).

I didn't see how you could take a swept sine wave and figure out where the "edges" would be.

So an experiement:

Create a transient of the worst (and for digital, illegal) case - a single full scale sample. Play that trough the speakers and record it. IIt sounds like a "click".

Then do a swept sine frequency response measurement, and display the imoulse response. It wounds like a "woooooooooooop" from low to high frequency.

The analysis of the impulse resonse derived from the frequency response looks all but exactly like the recorded "click" (transient).



Single Full Scale Sample sent through speakers, audio playback recorded in Audacity via UMIK-1:

Impulse response calculated from a ten second 10-24kHz sweep tone in REW:

A recorded and calculated Step response are equally similar.

There obviously is some math beyond my pay scale going on there.

 

[gnarly]

Impulse response calculated from a ten second 10-24kHz sweep tone in REW:

A recorded and calculated Step response are equally similar.

There obviously is some math beyond my pay scale going on there.

Nice test / demo.

The math is above my pay grade too, but I understand its principal implication very well.
Frequency response = transient response.

If only that simple axiom were burned into all of our audio mellons........... sigh

By frequency response, it means both frequency magnitude response (the everyday customary use of 'frequency response') AND the phase response.

Personally, i find it quite humorous that so many accepted authorities in audio world say phase is inaudible,
while people both objectively and subjectively, continually exclaim and debate the importance of transients and timbre,.........
...........that are as much a function of phase, as they are of frequency magnitude response.

 

[FrankW]

Personally, i find it quite humorous that so many accepted authorities in audio world say phase is inaudible,

Can you cite these quotes verbatim?

 

[Deleted member 48726]

If you can reproduce 20kHz, would imagine the transient response is good enough.

Why, how? -At the source maybe.

I imagine the driver reproducing 20 kHz isn't the same as the one that does it at 60 Hz.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

Can you cite these quotes verbatim?

I've stumbled upon these statements as well. I haven't logged them. If you are into HiFi you have seen them as well. No need to be able to quote them to date and time, do you think so?

 

[HarmonicTHD]

Why, how? -At the source maybe.

I imagine the driver reproducing 20 kHz isn't the same as the one that does it at 60 Hz.

that’s why we have multi-way speakers (most of the time at least)

 

[Deleted member 48726]

that’s why we have multi-way speakers (most of the time at least)

So transient response can be different at those two frequencies.

 

[FrankW]

No need to be able to quote

Wrong. If you're claiming an "authority" said something, it best be verbatim, not misconstrued

 

[PatentLawyer]

Why, how? -At the source maybe.

I imagine the driver reproducing 20 kHz isn't the same as the one that does it at 60 Hz.

I'm sorry, I don't follow you. Of course the driver producing 20kHz isn't the same one doing 60Hz (unless a full range, but that's another story)--but that's what a crossover is for. The woofer isn't being asked to reproduce 20kHz.

My comment just puts the earlier comments above about Fourier transform in different words. We can go back and forth from the time and frequency domains, so if the frequency domain is right at 20kHz......

 

[gnarly]

Can you cite these quotes verbatim?

Funny, surely you jest
In case not, I can't be of help other than to say try to give close attention to articles/comment on phase audibility, when you encounter them...

 

[Deleted member 48726]

I'm sorry, I don't follow you. Of course the driver producing 20kHz isn't the same one doing 60Hz (unless a full range, but that's another story)--but that's what a crossover is for. The woofer isn't being asked to reproduce 20kHz.

My comment just puts the earlier comments above about Fourier transform in different words. We can go back and forth from the time and frequency domains, so if the frequency domain is right at 20kHz......

Surely the response is not the same at either end of the spectrum then?

 

[NTK]

Here is an old Audioholics article on audibility of phase distortion with quotes from "authorities" and references.

Human Hearing - Phase Distortion Audibility Part 2

This article discusses how sensitive the human ear is to phase distortion and how it determines the listening quality we identify with.

www.audioholics.com

 

[Deleted member 48726]

Wrong. If you're claiming an "authority" said something, it best be verbatim, not misconstrued

No you are wrong.

So you have not read that from reviewers from time to time?