• 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!

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

fineMen

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 31, 2021
Messages
1,504
Likes
680
It does read, unfortunately, like you did "something" subjectively and then plucked some numbers out of the air. You say it yourself, some proof of work: I'd like to know what you did in detail: the hypothesis, exact method, ...
I'm not contributing to the field of "psychoacoustics". I determined my own, subjective needs.

This taught me that unless I actually go through the length to train my ears, ...
Why would you do that?! It only raises your expenses for an enjoyable stereo system.

And we can add references or benchmarks, i.e. systems which are more 'transparent' or reproduce the recording more accurately than our own.
I would propose to take the KEF R3 (outdated model) as a reference, agreed? Seriously, I think the R3 (outdated model) is affordable (now), and with a proper set of subs I can't imagine to ask for more.

****
Anyway, I'm going to use Audacity with Nyquist plug-in to generate IM / Doppler contaminated samples. Alas, Purify doesn't (for whatever reason) provide a proper example of the detrimental effects of IM / Doppler anymore. It'll take some time for me to provide the samples. I only hope that the forum's response wouldn't be just ignorance as it was before.
 

Galliardist

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 26, 2021
Messages
2,558
Likes
3,277
Location
Sydney. NSW, Australia
I'm not contributing to the field of "psychoacoustics". I determined my own, subjective needs.
Without knowing how, this knowledge is not transferable, so I'm going to disregard it. Sorry.

I will try to take note of your samples, of course.
 

Aerith Gainsborough

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 4, 2020
Messages
853
Likes
1,280
Why would you do that?! It only raises your expenses for an enjoyable stereo system.
Me, personally? I won't ever do it. Record quality is can be sketchy at best, as it is.
Oftentimes I can hear clipping and other imperfections. The last thing I want is "better ears". :'D

People like our Senpai Amir do need it for professional purposes though, so it comes as no surprise that they can be much more decerning when it comes to audio gear / compression algorithms / recording quality etc.
 

FrankW

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2023
Messages
393
Likes
373
I'm not contributing to the field of "psychoacoustics". I determined my own, subjective needs.
Im going to use Audacity with Nyquist plug-in to generate IM / Doppler contaminated samples. Alas, Purify doesn't (for whatever reason) provide a proper example of the detrimental effects of IM / Doppler anymore. It'll take some time for me to provide the samples. I only hope that the forum's response wouldn't be just ignorance as it was before.
Yes, of course, like Matt et al, make sure to ignore my "Flat earther" Klippel link in post 225 and instead, plow forward with your own ad hoc experimental contribution. :)
 

gnarly

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 15, 2021
Messages
1,035
Likes
1,471
Non stop laughter from a zero science subjectivist projecting :)
Hi FrankW,
You seem to have some kind of vendetta against any trace of subjectivity...
Seems uncalled for....peace :)

I'm a measurement guy heart and soul when building DIY speaker systems....but in the end, my ears rule.
One of the all time greats in audio science history, Richard Heyser, had a saying that I think is as true as it gets.

Perhaps more than any other discipline, audio engineering involves not only purely objective characterization but also subjective interpretations. It is the listening experience, that personal and most private sensation, which is the intended result of our labors in audio engineering. No technical measurement, however glorified with mathematics, can escape that fact.
 

krabapple

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
3,197
Likes
3,767
True, but the underlying blind preference for a speaker with a gently sloping downward response, in room, still appears to hold for the vast majority of listeners, as I remember it and as it is commonly held here (I'm without a copy of his book at the moment, unfortunately).

There doesn't seem to be a reason why @fineMen should have a markedly different preference.
Just off the top of my head :

-- he has high frequency hearing loss (which would have disqualified him from Harman studies); the measured in room response of his preferred speaker might look less tilted downward than the generally preferred one
-- he happens to be in the 'audio producers' preference cohort, for whatever reason*

*However I'm not sure the 'house curve' preference was ever something studied in a producers versus civilians context. The difference I recall is the preference for 'detail' versus 'envelopment'. I'd have to dig back into the book to confirm.
 

FrankW

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2023
Messages
393
Likes
373
Hi FrankW,
You seem to have some kind of vendetta against any trace of subjectivity.
Not just you, but everyone like you who confuses subjectivity with "no controls". As if almost every single link I provide isn't subjectivity. Probably don't read them either.

I'm a measurement guy heart and soul when building DIY speaker systems....but in the end, my ears rule.
That's what every audiophile says. It's more eyes, beliefs, biases, etc that concern me, regarding validity for anyone else.

One of the all time greats in audio science history, Richard Heyser, had a saying that I think is as true as it gets.
Perhaps more than any other discipline, audio engineering involves not only purely objective characterization but also subjective interpretations. It is the listening experience, that personal and most private sensation, which is the intended result of our labors in audio engineering. No technical measurement, however glorified with mathematics, can escape that fact.
I'm missing where he said "with zero controls" aka the anti-scientific method. Link?
 

FrankW

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2023
Messages
393
Likes
373
True, but the underlying blind preference for a speaker with a gently sloping downward response, in room, still appears to hold for the vast majority of listeners
No, not what is preferred, as Toole has repeatedly corrected here, including lately
Humans can separate the direct - first arrival - sound from later arrivals - reflections. In terms of sound quality and image localization the direct sound is dominant. That is why it is important to have flat and smooth - i.e. neutral timbre - on-axis and listening window frequency responses. Two ears and a brain are much smarter than a 1/4-inch microphone that simply adds things together.
 
OP
MattHooper

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,332
Likes
12,292
Yes, of course, like Matt et al, make sure to ignore my "Flat earther" Klippel link in post 225 and instead, plow forward with your own ad hoc experimental contribution. :)

So, to get this straight:

My thread is inquiring about: what if any distortions of recorded signals speakers are still guilty of, and if there is still distortion what are possible areas of improvement?

You spent pages

PUSHING....

BACK...

...on the inherent assumption that speakers could be distortion generators, as if I first needed to demonstrate the very claim that speakers can audibly distort the signal, before my question was even valid.

Which, again, in an ASR forum was like questioning the assumption the earth is round.

Nonetheless I responded, LISTING SEVERAL TYPES OF WELL KNOWN SPEAKER DISTORTION....and asked how you would explain the design goals for various aspects of speaker performance, if they were not various attempts to minimize the ways speakers can distort reproducing the recorded signal. I pointed out if you ever got around to answering such questions, it would obviously validate the very assumptions you were pretending to question.

Now...many pages later you finally get around to doing just that: POSTING A LINK DETAILING THE VARIOUS WAYS SPEAKERS DISTORT THE RECORDED SIGNAL

Which, of course as expected, validate my replies to you on that issue.

So the reason for all your handwaving drama and resistance to this assumption was...what?

No need to answer, it was obvious from the start and made explicit by you: You mistook someone for making naive subjectivist arguments and, despite been shown wrong at every turn, found Trolling to be more gratifying than attempting honest conversation.
 
Last edited:

gnarly

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 15, 2021
Messages
1,035
Likes
1,471
Not just you, but everyone like you who confuses subjectivity with "no controls". As if almost every single link I provide isn't subjectivity. Probably don't read them either.
You presume way too much.
That's what every audiophile says. It's more eyes, beliefs, biases, etc that concern me, regarding validity for anyone else.
I'm no audiophile...I rather loathe the term.
I think 99%of all reported tweaks are tantamount to just some EQs.
And often seen higher regard for aesthetics than for sound, along with gear lust, frankly disgust me.

As Heyser said, we have personal and private sensations with what we hear.
When folks project those into facts about audio, then I have concerns too.
When all they do is recount their experiences and preferences, who can argue with that?
I'm missing where he said "with zero controls" aka the anti-scientific method. Link?
Yeah, I think it's pretty clear you 'missed'.......his point. (and mine) :)
 

tuga

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
3,984
Likes
4,285
Location
Oxford, England
The time has come...

D1O93Ui.png
 

IPunchCholla

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2022
Messages
1,116
Likes
1,400
It seems to me that we are trying to reproduce reality with sound produced by two small sources from a recording made using a small number of microphones
I’m not. Nor do I think the vast majority of music listeners are. For most music, there is no reality on the other side of the recording.
 
OP
MattHooper

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,332
Likes
12,292
I’m not. Nor do I think the vast majority of music listeners are. For most music, there is no reality on the other side of the recording.

I think you are right about that. Most people don't even think about music in terms of "realistic" sound reproduction.

That's actually one reason why non audiophiles can experience a type of shock when they encounter reproduction that sounds distinctly "more realistic" than they ever considered. That's been a common reaction to my system by non-audiophiles over the years.

So while sonic realism is not a criteria most people are seeking, it is nonetheless one of the markers people will identify with "high sound quality" when they hear it.
 

IPunchCholla

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2022
Messages
1,116
Likes
1,400
I think you are right about that. Most people don't even think about music in terms of "realistic" sound reproduction.

That's actually one reason why non audiophiles can experience a type of shock when they encounter reproduction that sounds distinctly "more realistic" than they ever considered. That's been a common reaction to my system by non-audiophiles over the years.

So while sonic realism is not a criteria most people are seeking, it is nonetheless one of the markers people will identify with "high sound quality" when they hear it.
I think what you said is true, and has been my own personal experience hearing really good systems (and of course the best I have heard was a crazy expensive system full of insane tweaks). But I also think it is a misnomer at a philosophical level. It is not that it sounds “real” it is that it sounds unaffected by the reproduction system (as in undistorted at a similar DR to what we hear in the world). I meant it more in the sense that I doubt most people realize, nor care, that they are listening to software based instruments, much of the time, and what recordings there are, even acoustic, are highly processed to make them sound “real”.
 

Oristo

Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2022
Messages
67
Likes
70
Location
South Carolina
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?
My first classical record acquisitions were by Audio Fidelity, because cheap when I was poor (and remain frugal, so still own):
AudioFidelity.jpg


Although they may have been first played using a monophonic cartridge, when Hafler surround was announced, these were among LPs with most plausible ambience.

These were reportedly recorded using "Frey Stereophonic Curtain of Sound" (Sidney Frey being Audio Fidelity's owner) with "Telefunken stereophonic microphones".
Since released in 1959, and my understanding is that Telefunken was not yet producing their own, those may have been Neumann condensers
distributed with Telefunken logos and probably monophonic. Having even today never owned more than matched pairs of speakers,
I cobbled together an active approximation of Dynaquad, to balance levels from whatever speakers were available to graduate students at the time.

Bottom line: matrix surround playback IMO retrieved more useful information from those stereo recordings than any conventional stereo system that I have yet heard.
It seems generally accepted that a pair of microphones can suffice to capture a stereo recording intended for reproduction by a pair of loudspeakers
(or perhaps more credibly, with suitable provisions and processing, stereo headphones).
That sound pressure captured at 2 points in space should be acceptable for recreating an entire sound space
or the sound image from musicians in that space seems absurd to contemplate, but is generally accepted.
Mathematically, one would need to record sound pressure over the entire surface of the space to reproduce it.

I suppose that, were recordings simultaneously made (1)using a binaural recording apparatus and (2)for conventional stereo playback,
then playback of that stereo recording (3)subsequently rerecorded by the binaural apparatus,
(3) would never be mistaken for original binaural recording(1).
Consequently, perhaps some loudspeaker distortions are important for preferred reproduction.

Memory color is a generally accepted concept among so-called color scientists,
where consumers prefer grass being greener, water and sky bluer reproduced than in original scenes.
Beyond that, when rendered in smaller scale (e.g. on smartphones) even stronger contrast and saturation are preferred.
I suppose that comparable perception/memory issues apply to music reproduction.
 
OP
MattHooper

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,332
Likes
12,292
I think what you said is true, and has been my own personal experience hearing really good systems (and of course the best I have heard was a crazy expensive system full of insane tweaks). But I also think it is a misnomer at a philosophical level. It is not that it sounds “real” it is that it sounds unaffected by the reproduction system (as in undistorted at a similar DR to what we hear in the world).

That's an interesting comment. It reminds me of certain aspects I'm looking for in a sound system. I've heard some reviewers describe the general sound of certain systems, or loudspeakers as "un-mechanical." When I read that my mind yelled "yes! Exactly. That captures what I heard, and what I like so much about it." I like when the sound, including the specific instruments in a recording, do not sound "mechanical" in the sense of reminding me they are produced artificially by speakers/amps etc.
For instance if the highs add a coarsened, hashy or over-sibiliant quality to voices (or exaggerate those qualities already in the recording). Of course speakers are often producing the sound of "mechanical" devices being played. What I want removed is the added layer of being reminded of the "mechanical nature" of the reproducers of the sound themselves (speakers etc).

As you indicate (I think) a lack of added distortion not only seems more natural in terms of our references to real sounds, it is more agreeable with respect to any sound reproduction, even fully artificially constructed recordings (electronic instruments etc). If that's your point I agree very much.
 

fineMen

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 31, 2021
Messages
1,504
Likes
680
... plow forward with your own ad hoc experimental contribution. :)
My "subjectivism" is different. I only want to know what I need, that's why I take myself as the subject to be investigated.

I evaluate my tolerance for intermodulation distortion by numbers, then apply the numbers to a variety of speaker designs which again are evaluated by objectively taken (in this case: calculated plus measured) numbers.

I don't generalize my findings. But on the other hand, why shouldn't I recommend to others to eveluate their own needs? Especially when, in this case the o/p, asks for improvements?

In short for all who's "ignore list" I populate, why asking for more if one's needs are as low as I assume them to be, actually? For what reason else than that would anybody ignore deliberately the not so complicated issue of intermodulation? Is it because "the literature" doesn't cover it yet with measurements and some fancy wording?
 
OP
MattHooper

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,332
Likes
12,292
New Andrew Jones interview:


His take, relevant to the thread question, is that all speakers are still at this point compromised in terms of audible distortion characteristics of one sort or another. And that speaker designers are engaging in balancing those audible trade-offs as each sees fit.

It seems some in this thread would agree, some suggest, no...we've reached the point where there doesn't need to be trade offs and it's mostly a "solved problem."

In any case, Jones is excellent here in describing the various possible areas of speaker distortion and the solutions he takes in addressing them.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,771
Likes
37,635
No, not what is preferred, as Toole has repeatedly corrected here, including lately
The confusion in this is measured in room you get a downward sloping curve of something that is flat on axis in an anechoic chamber. The downward slope is a measurement artifact. So in this sense downward sloping room curve and flat anechoic are the same thing.
 

tuga

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
3,984
Likes
4,285
Location
Oxford, England
My "subjectivism" is different. I only want to know what I need, that's why I take myself as the subject to be investigated.

I evaluate my tolerance for intermodulation distortion by numbers, then apply the numbers to a variety of speaker designs which again are evaluated by objectively taken (in this case: calculated plus measured) numbers.

I don't generalize my findings. But on the other hand, why shouldn't I recommend to others to eveluate their own needs? Especially when, in this case the o/p, asks for improvements?

In short for all who's "ignore list" I populate, why asking for more if one's needs are as low as I assume them to be, actually? For what reason else than that would anybody ignore deliberately the not so complicated issue of intermodulation? Is it because "the literature" doesn't cover it yet with measurements and some fancy wording?

If you haven't read it already, the attached piece might interest you.
 

Attachments

  • Neumann - MEASUREMENT DESCRIPTIONS.pdf
    789.8 KB · Views: 37
Top Bottom