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

[tuga]

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.

Is in-room downward sloping a measurement artifact or just the result of narrowing directivity and boundary interaction?

 

[IPunchCholla]

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.

Yep. My point was that even the intentionally distorted, software based sounds sound better when the playback system is cleaner, even though they still don’t sound real.

 

[IPunchCholla]

In short for all who's "ignore list" I populate

Obviously, you’re not on mine. But, I would recommend, if you are feeling slighted or ignored, to consider that when you are in a room full of intelligent people and they are all looking at you a bit oddly, that perhaps it is something about how you are presenting yourself?

Personally, I believe you are arguing in good faith, it’s just that much of the time, your language is very elliptical and I have a hard time parsing your sentences.

This time, though, your first paragraph is totally cogent and I think an under appreciated take.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Is in-room downward sloping a measurement artifact or just the result of narrowing directivity and boundary interaction?

Some of both. Directivity of the speaker and reflectivity of the room and room size will effect how much slope will be measured if the speaker is really flat on axis. Usually .9 to 1.0 db per octave is about right (or 3 db per decade).

 

[MattHooper]

Yep. My point was that even the intentionally distorted, software based sounds sound better when the playback system is cleaner, even though they still don’t sound real.

Righto. I've mentioned before: the desire for the reproduction of the timbral complexity of real acoustic instruments translates also to the reproduction of electronic instruments (amplified guitar, any keyboard sounds etc). When I play keyboards through a decent monitor or pair of headphones the sound is often much smoother, richer, more complex than the often reductive, surface-level, harmonically squeezed version when recorded and later heard through an average sound system. I find that to the extent a system reproduceds the complexity and gorgeous tonal quality of acoustic sources, it does this for electronic sources as well.

 

[Kvalsvoll]

Is in-room downward sloping a measurement artifact or just the result of narrowing directivity and boundary interaction?

All of those, to some extent. Change measurement window, and the graph will change. Flat speaker (flat power) gives less slope, but non-treated rooms may still show considerable slope. Fix the room, and it measures flat, with all speakers.

 

[gnarly]

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.

My partner's cat paid me one of the highest compliments about my speakers/sound, that I've had in a while.

Her cat, Wally, is a like a guard dog and runs to the front door whenever he hears someone come over.

This morning, I had my left side speaker stack aimed out of the main room, thru the front door foyer, and into my office.
I played a track that started off with a guy talking.
Wally came bolting out of the back bedroom, and was peering into/stalking the foyer, trying to find someone talking near the front door.
Thank you Wally !! Real enough sounding to fool a cat haha (The simple pleasures of being an audio nut Lol)

 

[fineMen]

Yep. My point was that even the intentionally distorted, software based sounds sound better when the playback system is cleaner, even though they still don’t sound real.

So, why? Or should I ask what 'clean' is supposed to be?

My partner's cat paid me one of the highest compliments about my speakers/sound, ...

The classic again, the cat being tricked, not that you yourself are fully satisfied.

What is

"Detail Retrieval"​

actually? I tried first to circumvent this question, but is there any definition of what the original post is asking for? Since nobody told what is missing in general, what is this detail thing in particular?

 

[IPunchCholla]

So, why?

Could you elaborate?

 

[fineMen]

Could you elaborate?

You stated that a 'cleaner' system behaves more gentle to even synthetic sounds. My question is what you think the reason is. Edit: what is 'clean' supposed to be?

 

[MattHooper]

So, why? Or should I ask what 'clean' is supposed to be?

The classic again, the cat being tricked, not that you yourself are fully satisfied.

What is

"Detail Retrieval"​

actually? I tried first to circumvent this question, but is there any definition of what the original post is asking for? Since nobody told what is missing in general, what is this detail thing in particular?

I admit I thought the concept would be pretty obvious: the sonic details contained in recordings.

I elaborated earlier in the thread, which I'll re-paste here if it helps:

There is sonic information encoded in recordings. This includes everything from the most conspicuous sonic characteristics of melody/song structure, voices, instruments, musical performance, down to the timbre of the chosen instruments, even the difference in timbre between various drum cymbals, down even to the subtlest bits of reverb or acoustics added or captured in recordings. The question then is are the best speakers capable at this point of reproducing all the sonic information in any recording, accurately, or is there still any ways to go? And IF there is still enough happening in the best speakers to distort the recorded information, or there may be yet more detail left unresolved, where would speakers need to improve. It's a totally open question on all counts.

 

[fineMen]

I admit I thought the concept would be pretty obvious: the sonic details contained in recordings.

I elaborated earlier in the thread, which I'll re-paste here if it helps:

There is sonic information encoded in recordings. This includes everything from the most conspicuous sonic characteristics ... It's a totally open question on all counts.

I once learned that musicians are not always (slight understatement) satisfied with recordings. For instance I was told that a piano would most likely get an artificial sound by emphasizing the brilliance.

When it comes to a general assessment of speakers I like to reiterate the importance of phase related intermodulation distortion. I'm afraid this topic isn't accessible for too many audiophiles. My subjective stance is that 2-ways are to be avoided in favour of 3- to 4-way designs.

=> https://www.linkwitzlab.com/frontiers.htm#J

 

[IPunchCholla]

You stated that a 'cleaner' system behaves more gentle to even synthetic sounds. My question is what you think the reason is. Edit: what is 'clean' supposed to be?

Clean is anything that distorts from the signal being played. This means room, speakers, electronics chain. Unflat FR, HD, IMD, poor DI, untreated room…

In other words an impossible, or least very expensive, goal.

Like you, though, I have been establishing what is clean enough, for me. With various types of distortion, this is relatively easy to ascertain. I can easily add in various types until I establish what thresholds cause a noticeable detriment to music for me.

With other aspects it is more trial and error and preference. I recently recabineted my drivers moving to a much narrower and rounded front. It measurable flattened my FR and lowered distortion (much sturdier cabinets) but I actually can’t tell the difference. What I can hear (I think) is a slight widening of the sound stage along with less distinct stereo image and a much bigger sweet spot. Not being willing to go through the fuss of doing quasi-anechoic measurements, I don’t have numerical evidence, though it does follow logically from the design changes.

What is interesting is that I found out that I prefer a larger sweet spot over more precise imaging.

 

[fineMen]

Clean is anything that distorts from the signal being played. This means room, speakers, electronics chain. Unflat FR, HD, IMD, poor DI, untreated room…

In other words an impossible, or least very expensive, goal.

To replicate the electrical signal in terms of air pressure aka sound in a technical sense is basically impossible. At least at the position of the listener's ears. Is it desirable then to achieve that goal, taking the past success of stereo into account? Me thinks not. The signal is not a proper reference.

A better reference would be the sound engineer's objective, what he/she wanted to convey. And also it depends on the expectations on the other side of the communiction channel.

Maybe she has less qualified studio monitors. Automatically she will emphasize, let's say brilliance to 'reveal' some characteristics of the instrument in focus (infamous: harpsichord). Do you want to replicate the result that she hears using likewise less qualified speakers, or do you want to over-emphasize the effect with more qualified speakers?

Problem is, neither you nor the o/p are able to tell what you're after in common terms. If my recollection doesn't trick me, Toole's work dismissed the usage of terms alltogether in asking for unquestioned 'preference' alone. So, we've got a lotta work to do ...

 

[IPunchCholla]

Problem is, neither you nor the o/p are able to tell what you're after in common terms. If my recollection doesn't trick me, Toole's work dismissed the usage of terms alltogether in asking for unquestioned 'preference' alone. So, we've got a lotta work to do ...

One can measure distortion of all types “at the ears”. Currently we don’t have the technology to eliminate all types, so it is a trade off in terms of what matters more, but it is measurable and the causes (if not their solutions) are well understood.

To me, the OP was very clear about the terms he was looking to address. I thought I was as well.

The rest of this seems to be about the issue of the circle of confusion, which I agree we are still in (though less and less all the time). Until that circle is closed, I personally am not worrying about the other side of the recording. The recording is the recording.

 

[Galliardist]

The subjective answer I would give to the harpsichord question is to use a neutral system with, to use your words, more qualified speakers.

The musically important part of harpsichord sound is the initial contact with the keys, and I find you have to live with any mangling of the overall sound to best reproduce that contact.

To my ears, at least, harpsichord sound is impaired by high second harmonic distortion more than other instruments.

However, what I’m talking about here is an emergent property of overall good sound, not a detail to chase.

 

[Pudik]

I'd like better/more methods of testing speakers. For example, and before everyone calls audiophiles satan worshippers, let's make recordings that intentionally have content 40~50 dB below complex musical content, maybe someone talking or something. Then test which speakers allow someone to understand the "quiet" speech. The recording should have the speech at several different volumes relative to the primary content.

I'll second the suggestions for more single- and double-blind testing in speaker development. I would love if audio events set this up for conference visitors. Maybe I'll pitch that to the organizers of the Capital Audio shows near me.

I'd like speaker designs with more effective point source presentation. KEF, Genelec, and others have been moving in this direction of course, but there's still good midbass integration missing from KEF's, and even though these units are using concentric drivers, does the sound really leave the driver in a way that perfectly matches what the original sounded like? The outer driver's cone's movement interferes with and modulates the diffraction of the tweeter's wavefront. Where can we get smooth ideal reproduction?

If one remembers the receivers and amplifiers of the '80s and '90s, most of them had a midrange button between the low and high range shelf buttons. It was an incredibly useful part that gradually disappeared. We would probably have an easier task if manufacturers would bring that potmeter back in some shape or form. Since midrange in general is an eternal problem with speakers, leading to muddy performance (i m speaking of bookshelves), i think pushing the makers of receivers and amps would bring back some of the obvious advantages of midrange correction in the electronics of the audio chain.

Going back to the trigger question, i'd say (as a semi amateur) we should seriously consider doing away with the dynamic cone cum piston paradigm and seriously considering to revisit some of the more or less (apparently) defunct trials of different technologies, such as the '50s magnetostrictive speaker, and/or a serious push to resolving the problems of the electrostatics. I feel that we're somewhat wallowing, nay, circling around a technology that's 120+ years old and, even though the materials are better, the achievements are tenuously incremental.

I have a horrible 16 square yd bedroom where my equipment resides with speakers from 3 different manufs in a 7.1 arrangement. The speakers are old, yeah, i m poised to buy some new ones, but like others here have tremendous choice problems bc none can do everything i desire, so what else is new. However, i am absolutely clear abt the room's problems b/c all of the speakers have two terrible resonance points: one is at around 60 Hz, the other around 1000, the latter is a harmonic of the former. Every instrument's tone color is colored at these freqs, to the point of non-recognition. Violins sound like flutes and trumpets like oboes. In my experience, new speakers and room treatment is the key to sound nirvana, period. P.

 

[MattHooper]

Going back to the trigger question, i'd say (as a semi amateur) we should seriously consider doing away with the dynamic cone cum piston paradigm and seriously considering to revisit some of the more or less (apparently) defunct trials of different technologies, such as the '50s magnetostrictive speaker, and/or a serious push to resolving the problems of the electrostatics.

I doubt I can get onboard with that. I had my dalliance with electrostatics (Quad 63s, though I've listened to tons of different electrostatics). I abandoned them for box 'n cone speakers because I found the electrostatic ultimately to wan and ghostly sounding, no "room feel" impact or palpability. I don't know that this can really be helped with the electrostatic design principles. Not sure if it's the wave launch, or the dipole nature of the sound, but having heard so many electrostatics it seems inherent.

 

[Purité Audio]

Completely agree, heard many ‘best’ were stacked Quads with subs, in a room which had broadband absorption behind the speakers, I imagine though that in 1957 they were really something special.
Keith

 

[Leif]

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.

Eh? So the musicians do not exist? I think your intended meaning got lost somewhere.

When I listen to a recording of a Shostakovich symphony, I expect it to sound like I am seated in the audience, but without the sneezing, munching and farting. With rock music it’s a bit different as many instruments are recorded via the feed rather than via a mic.