PUNCH! How do we define it?

[pozz]

The AES paper I referred to in the OP says that most of the punch happens in lower frequencies, and punch decreases as you go up in frequency. See figure 4 from the paper below. The speaker used in the test (Genelec 8040A) doesn’t have capabilities for producing the lowest frequencies, which may explain why those low frequencies weren’t tested for «punch».

View attachment 28295

Kind of surprised that punch in their definition doesn't refer to attack clarity in the mids/highs. Ah well.

 

[svart-hvitt]

Experiment with speakers:

If you do have "punch", and a punchy piece of music, and some control of EQ...

Remove some range in the bass, and see if the punchiness disappears.

My vote goes for 50-100Hz range.

Is a kick drum punchy? Yes, and it generally falls in the 50-100Hz range.

Is punch (not paunch, that's lower) felt in the chest?

If yes, guess what!

View attachment 28296

Subtle Clue:

My 9v Transistor Radio doesn't have much punch.

My four cheezy fifteens and the two twelves in the mains do.

I wonder if your point boils it all down, in a way. Modern speakers of high quality are becoming smaller and smaller. This downsizing is spectacular and a reflection of engineering triumphs. But did we miss something on the downsizing path? Did we miss...punch?

I don’t say a big speaker is a good speaker. But a good speaker is a big speaker.

 

[PierreV]

I'd say that "punch" is really a subjective term - maybe there is a definition, yes, won't argue with that - but it is what people think. Coincidentally I was discussing the issue of "punch" with a composer friend: his track (synth) moved a lot of air, but lacked "punch" in my book. I think that in order to have my kind of punch, the air must move and must move tightly.

A quick snapshot of my friend's track

the same somewhat tweaked (yes, more air moved, but still a bit muddy)

The same style of music, from another band (better synth, bigger budget) was very punchy and very clean.

And then, a snippet from a band known for very good tech and mixing (YELLO - don't remember the track) - note the melodic line in the low bass that is, btw, almost lost on non full-range systems. In that particular track, depending on the system, there can be a lot of punch or not that much around 32Hz

Note: handheld phone spectrum recordings during the on-line discussion, nothing reference here

Conclusion: my own very subjective definition of "punch" includes both energy and tightness/cleanliness. Could be that "slam" means tight punch, who really knows?

I find live spectrums interesting btw - they clearly show differences between speakers and sometimes help support my subjective impressions as far as amp+speakers are concerned. One can really see the differences between an amplifier that struggles in delivering tight bass and one that does so effortlessly.

Too bad there isn't some kind of formalized test imho.

 

[DonH56]

Punch in music/audio review world = "chest slam" or "slap" -- upper bass impact from something like a drum or hammer strike.

Also used to describe a component that exceeds expectations, e.g. "that DAC really punches through" implying it "punched through" (exceeded) the performance barrier of other devices.

Then there is the liquid refreshment, the physical hit (attack), etc.

IMO - Don

 

[mitchco]

Coming from the music production side, there are several ways to achieve a "punchy sound" on bass, drums, etc., that range from eq, compressors, limiters, and the all time favourite, magnetic tape saturation or sometimes referred to as slammin tape. Which again is another form of compression.

Assuming we are talking about the sound reproduction side of playing back a recording that has punch, I would agree with @Cosmik to say one of the defining parameters is driver time alignment, especially if you have subs. Nothing like having the sound arriving at your ears all at the same time when it comes to transient response impact.

Without getting into speaker Thiele/Small parameters and cabinet alignments, another factor that determines punch is amplifier damping factor. Amplifiers with DF's greater than 20 "seem" to sound punchier to my ears than with amps of damping factors less <20. A small experiment I tried was level matching my KEF LS50's using Nelson Pass ACA amps with a DF of 3 and then comparing with a Crown XLS 1502 with a DF of 200. At around 83 dB SPL listening level, the ACA was still within its operating range. The bass sounded like one would expect from a tube amp - nice and phat! But with the Crown - much tighter, "punchier" sounding to my ears. Amplifier DF is an area that could use more exploration with controlled listening tests.

Anecdotally, years ago, in a recording studio control room, far, far away, I remember listening to Crown Macro Tech amps with damping factor of 5000 and all I could remember how much punch the large format control room monitors had as we just had replaced the amp from one I had been using for sometime which had nowhere near the punch, but the same watts...

PS. re: Kii THREE - I find their bass almost too dry sounding (is that neutral?). Don't know if it is related to their combined voltage/current control loop for the amps/speakers and/or damping factor...

 

[svart-hvitt]

Kind of surprised that punch in their definition doesn't refer to attack clarity in the mids/highs. Ah well.

I agree about not limiting a discussion on «punch» to lower frequencies. Maybe one needs to bend or break the rules a bit?

The Fenton and Lee paper that I referred to in the OP demonstrated that «punch» is a lower frequency phenomenon, but I wonder if «punch» is a limiting term. Could «punch» be defined as something which is frequency independent?

The reason why I came to think about «punch» and making this thread started in the opposite end of the low frequencies. I auditioned a new speaker, the two-way Genelec S360, which uses a compression tweeter and a 10 inch woofer. The tweeter is highly efficient, and it was the tweeter that got me reflecting about speed, or «punch».

What happens in a highly efficient driver? Well, @John_Siau has written about the first watt and how higher power leads to distortion in drivers (https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/power-amplifiers-the-importance-of-the-first-watt). I don’t know and am just speculating: Could highly efficient drivers be a source of «punch», «snappiness», especially as you move up in frequency where our hearing is more «accurate»?

I auditioned the S360 against Genelec 8351 and the high frequency difference was obvious (as it should be). Previously, compression drivers were shunned in hifi speakers for obvious reasons. However, recently Phil Ward of Sound on Sound wrote the following

«Compression drivers are most often found on speakers designed for live‑sound applications, where efficiency, very high volume capability and reliability are priorities — sometimes, it has to be said, at the expense of sound quality. Having 'dissed' compression drivers, however, my experience of the JBL 7 Series monitors, reviewed in the February 2018 issue, showed that these days they can definitely be made to compete on sound‑quality terms with direct‑radiating drivers (...) I wonder if advances in computer modelling of diaphragm behaviour are enabling diaphragm materials and profiles that were previously considered as only good for less demanding PA applications to become viable for high‑accuracy monitoring?»
Source: https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/genelec-s360

So I wonder if «punch», if that is the right word, has to do with higher frequencies as well. Which makes me wonder if «punch» should be liberated from a discussion of certain frequencies because «punch» is a quality that streteches over the entire frequency area.

Does that make sense?

 

[KSTR]

To me, "punch" is mainly a speaker thing. Large cone area which is hardly moving is the key here. A 15" PA woofer that's hardly moving delivers more punch that small 6.5" woofer even when the displaced air volume is the same (same SPL) and both are EQ'd to the same response. And bass horn delivers even more punch. The reason is the better matching to the acoustic impedance of the air, plus the greater homogenity of the wavefronts.
The amp's damping factor itself is *not* a key issue but it changes the frequency response when it's getting large which is an issue of course. Once EQ'd to the same response the punch also is the same, regardless of damping factor, at least for closed-box designs, open-baffles and horns. With ported speakers a low damping factor also changes the port's behaviour and that may result in different sound even when EQ'd to the same frequency response target.

 

[RayDunzl]

Amplifiers with DF's greater than 20 "seem" to sound punchier to my ears than with amps of damping factors less <20.

The amp's damping factor itself is *not* a key issue

Pondering, here:

Does a speaker create back emf (anti-signal) as it is moved by the signal?

Feedback inside the amp would counteract that.

Low "damping factor" (relatively high output impedance) could subvert the correction, leading to lack of punch, as the signal is no longer all there at the speaker terminal?

 

[pozz]

I don't care about punch unless it has alcohol in it, and even then I prefer scotch.

Puns are an important part of my diet.

 

[mitchco]

Hi @RayDunzl , whether marketing or not.... http://www.rickysaudio.com/docs/Damping Factor Explained.pdf

I respectfully disagree with @KSTR but as I said in my original post, this is an area where more controlled double blind listening tests would be interesting and useful. Harman has the facility and the (Crown) amps to do so, if it hasn't already been done. Would be interesting to see if there are any AES papers on it as well...

 

[svart-hvitt]

Puns are an important part of my diet.

Spike the punch!

 

[Nango]

Yes, some headphones have more 'punch' than others but in general these headphones have a boost at around 150 Hz region. Probably not accidental.

This is where the "body" of the music is meant to reside, right?

 

[Kvalsvoll]

I agree about not limiting a discussion on «punch» to lower frequencies. Maybe one needs to bend or break the rules a bit?

The Fenton and Lee paper that I referred to in the OP demonstrated that «punch» is a lower frequency phenomenon, but I wonder if «punch» is a limiting term. Could «punch» be defined as something which is frequency independent?

The reason why I came to think about «punch» and making this thread started in the opposite end of the low frequencies. I auditioned a new speaker, the two-way Genelec S360, which uses a compression tweeter and a 10 inch woofer. The tweeter is highly efficient, and it was the tweeter that got me reflecting about speed, or «punch».

What happens in a highly efficient driver? Well, @John_Siau has written about the first watt and how higher power leads to distortion in drivers (https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/power-amplifiers-the-importance-of-the-first-watt). I don’t know and am just speculating: Could highly efficient drivers be a source of «punch», «snappiness», especially as you move up in frequency where our hearing is more «accurate»?

I auditioned the S360 against Genelec 8351 and the high frequency difference was obvious (as it should be). Previously, compression drivers were shunned in hifi speakers for obvious reasons. However, recently Phil Ward of Sound on Sound wrote the following

«Compression drivers are most often found on speakers designed for live‑sound applications, where efficiency, very high volume capability and reliability are priorities — sometimes, it has to be said, at the expense of sound quality. Having 'dissed' compression drivers, however, my experience of the JBL 7 Series monitors, reviewed in the February 2018 issue, showed that these days they can definitely be made to compete on sound‑quality terms with direct‑radiating drivers (...) I wonder if advances in computer modelling of diaphragm behaviour are enabling diaphragm materials and profiles that were previously considered as only good for less demanding PA applications to become viable for high‑accuracy monitoring?»
Source: https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/genelec-s360

So I wonder if «punch», if that is the right word, has to do with higher frequencies as well. Which makes me wonder if «punch» should be liberated from a discussion of certain frequencies because «punch» is a quality that streteches over the entire frequency area.

Does that make sense?

Punch is - or, rather, was - a subjective term used to describe properties of the sound in the bass range. Punchy bass == bass transient are experienced as powerful and often physically tactile.

But as far as I know, there is no strict definition, and language evolves as words get new meanings when they are used to describe something slightly different. The word is useful and makes sense as long as there is a common understanding of its meaning. So I see no problem in using the word punch to describe properties at high frequencies.

What you experienced here is that speakers can sound different even when fundamental properties like frequency response are similar, and that transient response is certainly not limited to bass frequencies alone. This is important, because in todays world when shopping speakers on internet by reading reviews and technical information, this fact is often lost in the process, and you may never know that there actually are quite significant differences.

 

[svart-hvitt]

Punch is - or, rather, was - a subjective term used to describe properties of the sound in the bass range. Punchy bass == bass transient are experienced as powerful and often physically tactile.

But as far as I know, there is no strict definition, and language evolves as words get new meanings when they are used to describe something slightly different. The word is useful and makes sense as long as there is a common understanding of its meaning. So I see no problem in using the word punch to describe properties at high frequencies.

What you experienced here is that speakers can sound different even when fundamental properties like frequency response are similar, and that transient response is certainly not limited to bass frequencies alone. This is important, because in todays world when shopping speakers on internet by reading reviews and technical information, this fact is often lost in the process, and you may never know that there actually are quite significant differences.

I think you’re right. And clever engineers-salesmen have (mis)used the modern era of measurements to make speakers that look good on paper, yet lack any real-world punch capability. I have used one example of this a couple hundred times by now.

In certain films lack of real-world punch becomes more apparent. Which begs the question: WHY ARE SO MANY SPEAKERS NOT DESIGNED TO BE USED FOR FILM?

This is not to say that clever engineering in downsized boxes can sound «impressive», but good sound demands a certain footprint. Highly subjective, but I feel the Kii story is compelling evidence.

The downside is, real heavyweights may not be as attractive to the eye...

 

[Kvalsvoll]

I think you’re right. And clever engineers-salesmen have (mis)used the modern era of measurements to make speakers that look good on paper, yet lack any real-world punch capability. I have used one example of this a couple hundred times by now.

In certain films lack of real-world punch becomes more apparent. Which begs the question: WHY ARE SO MANY SPEAKERS NOT DESIGNED TO BE USED FOR FILM?

This is not to say that clever engineering in downsized boxes can sound «impressive», but good sound demands a certain footprint. Highly subjective, but I feel the Kii story is compelling evidence.

The downside is, real heavyweights may not be as attractive to the eye...

In some cases, the sound character may be intentional. Because some people prefer it like that. I also think you are a bit too hard on the kii - to me, they look like a well engineered product. If it sounds a little relaxed compared to a larger installation with proper bass-system, the same could be said about most of the typical smaller hifi-speakers, they will not have the same slam, punch, dynamics - call it what you want, and that goes for the whole frequency range, from the very low bass up into the high treble.

One of the experiments with the small F105 was to install it in the media room, and hear marvelous movie sound. That was disappointing. The lack of transient power and realism really made a huge difference, and this is not just about capacity, still valid at moderate spl. Now, they did not sound very good for music either, in that room.

 

[Sal1950]

I wonder if your point boils it all down, in a way. Modern speakers of high quality are becoming smaller and smaller. This downsizing is spectacular and a reflection of engineering triumphs. But did we miss something on the downsizing path? Did we miss...punch?

Sure we did. As PWK used to say, you can't change the laws of physics. Lots of the discussion here falls back to a debate I was having with Keith over the Kii's back in Dec.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...psi-shootout-at-kore-studios.5255/post-122171
IMO it's hard to focus the definition of "punch" but beyond freq response it is related to a speakers ability to couple to the air and move large volumes of it with ease and lack of distortion. Poorly generalizing - horns, panels, and just plain large speakers with multiple drivers do this easier than any small stand mount can and many/most possess the quality loosely know as "punch".

 

[Juhazi]

I really don't care much about these slam, punch etc. definitions, because they mean different things to everyone. Anyway, considering bass attack/ punch, I see it as having enogh cone area and low group delay down to 30Hz. But all recordings don't have this punch at all!

That can achieved best with closed box 3-way speakers that have 15" or 2x10" bass drivers, in closed box and some eq plus decent power.

 

[Wombat]

I really don't care much about these slam, punch etc. definitions, because they mean different things to everyone. Anyway, considering bass attack/ punch, I see it as having enogh cone area and low group delay down to 30Hz. But all recordings don't have this punch at all!

That can achieved best with closed box 3-way speakers that have 15" or 2x10" bass drivers, in closed box and some eq plus decent power.

I think properly designed/sized/powered(not high) horns do it best, from experience. Not so practical for most. It is about better driver to air-coupling impedance match.

 

[KSTR]

Does a speaker create back emf (anti-signal) as it is moved by the signal?

Back-EMF is just a fancy term for the omni-present microphonic voltage a speaker always produces whenever it's cone moves. It doesn't matter what the cause of this movement is, it can be internal forces as well as external ones.
This voltage defines the available electrical damping of the cone, actually the sum of resistances it works against: the voice coil resistance plus the amp's output resistance plus any resistance/impedance in the crossover. The amp's output resistance is the most neglegible term in this as can be readily seen. Only when it is becoming the same order of magnitude than the VC resistance things start to change sigificantly.

 

[KSTR]

Back-EMF and "damping factor", and general speaker working principles, are severly misunderstood even by industry professionals which is a mystery to me.
It is readily apparant that a speaker driver's output only depends on the voltage (or the current, for that matter) on the driver terminals, not the source impedance. Same voltage (or current) == same output. Not hard to understand, I'd say. That's even valid for ported boxes.
There are second order differences though, the distortion profile and the overload behaviour. I've build amps with adjustable output impdance from negative values (well, you shouldn't go more negative than the DC resistance, of course) to +infinite and when the speaker terminal voltage (or current) is dialed in to be the same, the output and the overall sound is the same, as long as we stay in the linear region of excursion.
When the voice coil works on an extremly low effective effective impedance, say 0.1Ohms, it's working in pure velocity controlled mode (the amp must supply a signal proportional to cone velocity needed for a certain output). This is actually true servo-control of the cone with the voice coil being the sensor and the actuator at the same time (and that's where the problem is, the sensor is getting very nonlinear quickly).
With infinite source resistance (aka current drive) the speaker works in pure force-controlled mode (the amp must supply a signal proportional to the force needed for a certain output).
Both extremes aren't useful in practice for most speakers, as the drivers have been designed for standard self-damped (R_damp == R_dc) operation, but for many drivers and speaker constructions an optimum source impedance vs frequency profile can be found which is different from zero.