-
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?
- Thread starter MattHooper
- Start date
Your initial question was: "Accuracy to the recording or accuracy to what is heard in the studio?"
To me, that is the same thing, because there is in most cases no "complete music file" or a "final record" before it is heard, mixed, and finalized in the studio.
1. That final record, i.e. the digital file was most commonly a mix out of 20 (or more) separate tracks before it was mixed down to a stereo track.
2. All those separate tracks were heard and mixed in the studio, which means that there was no complete record before it was heard and mixed in the studio.
3. The record was most likely mixed with a pair of studio monitors set up in a traditional equilateral stereo configuration. That means that the overall sound of the final mix will sound somewhat the same on other sound systems with a similar stereo setup (minus some different colorations of different sound systems).
4. Most of those separate tracks were also most likely equalized until the mixing engineer found them sounding "right" to him, and until they did fit together with the rest of the tracks in the mix in the final panning position within the mix.
5. If the mixing engineer did find those "stereo faults" making the phantom sounds in the mix sound somewhat wrong to him, he would most likely address those faults at the same time as he EQ those individual sounds in the mix. And it doesn't matter much if the mixing engineer has a deeper knowledge of the "stereo faults" or not, because he will sculpture those individual tracks until he likes what he hears and if those stereo faults are obvious they will most likely be addressed "with the rest of the EQ package".
A stereo mix will never sound "right" outside the so-called sweet spot. Listening to a stereo track has and will always be a "one-man sport", therefore, the mixing engineer will in most cases almost completely ignore how the mix sound to a casual listener outside that sweet spot, because that person is most likely not listening critically to the stereo mix anyway. (Yes, we are talking about this again)
We must be reading different text?That was a mistake, yes, to evaluate Spatial Quality of a single speaker.
"Because stereo imaging and soundstage issues were involved, listeners were interrogated on many aspects of spatial and directional interest.
To our great surprise, listeners had strong opinions about imaging when listening in mono.
Not only that, but they were very much more strongly opinionated about the relative sound quality merits of the loudspeakers in the mono tests than in the stereo tests."
Do please re-read my post and have scientific calculator at hand. 107dB/W is still less than 5% efficiency. In order to reach the “inefficient” piston engine levels you need 130dB/W and to reach the efficiency of an electric motor you need 136dB/W !
tuga
Major Contributor
It is still massively more sensitive than the 86dB/W Ultima Salon2.
And your point is?
tuga
Major Contributor
Sensitive/efficient speakers are possible, drivers are available. But Purifi's tiny long excursion mid-woofers are more exciting for some reason.
tuga
Major Contributor
According to this calculator 107dB/W/1m = 25% sensitivity. Or am I missing something?
Efficiency and sensitivity conversion - loudspeaker percent and dB per watt and meter loudspeaker efficiency versus sensitivity vs speaker sensitivity 1 watt = 2,83 volt box chart - sengpielaudio Sengpiel Berlin
Efficiency and sensitivity conversion - loudspeaker percent and dB per watt and meter dB/W/m loudspeaker efficiency versus sensitivity vs speaker sensitivity 1 watt = 2,83 volt box chart - sengpielaudio Eberhard Sengpiel
And 86dB/W/1m = 0.25%
Edit: it looks like you are referring to efficiency but not %.
OP
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 7,291
- Likes
- 12,201
- Thread Starter
- #149
I always appreciate your contributions!
Just riffing off what you guys are debating...
1. The discussion of how much room reflection we might want to hear in regard to speaker dispersion somewhat relates to my general question: Taking stereo recordings as the example, and presuming we are talking about the "best" performing current speakers: In terms of accurately transcribing the sonic information in to sound, so the listener can in principle hear all the sonic details contained in recordings, Are We There Yet? Is (well designed) speaker distortion now so low, the sound so accurate to the signal, that no sonic information is being lost at all? If so it suggests the question simply moves to how do we want that detail presented. E.g. with more spaciousness (for instance availing ourselves of room reflections), less spaciousness etc. In other words, now it's all about choices for dispersion/directivity characteristics?
However, if even the best loudspeakers are still seen as significant enough source of distortion that could be masking some recorded detail, where are the areas that are problematic that we'd want to improve? (I appreciate that people are giving a range of opinions).
2. Mono vs Stereo speaker blind listening tests: I wouldn't dispute Toole's research or your characterization. Though it's interesting to ponder the implications nonetheless.
As I've said before: If the main point of testing in mono was that stereo made it harder to identify sonic detriments in the sound, essentially masking artifacts that require mono to hear...then the relevance to stereo listening seems eroded. The analogy I've made before is like saying that you really have to taste wagu beef on it's own to discern how much better it is than cheap off the shelf ground beef. Putting it in your chili recipe will make the superiority of the wagu impossible to discern. But then, IF the point of buying beef is that you'll be using it for chili, it doesn't make sense to worry about buying wagu beef. Buy the cheaper beef, or whatever beef you like, since it will taste similar. One could say the same for buying/evaluating speakers. If the use case is listening in stereo, "why not evaluate speakers in stereo if that's how you'll be listening?" And if "worse quality" pair whose artifacts would have shown up in mono sounds perfectly fine in stereo....what's the prob?
That isn't to say a coherent argument for the relevance of mono-evaluation to stereo listening can't be made. As I recall, Toole has pointed out that among the justifications for mono tests is that some studies indicated that preferences in mono listening tended to predict very well preferences in stereo evaluations. Which is good. If so, that may indicate mono listening is *sufficient* for evaluating stereo performance. But it wouldn't establish it as *necessary* or even "better" for the purpose of sonic preferences in stereo. So long as a wider array of speakers would pass the stereo listening tests for "good sound" (because some artifacts will be less apparent in stereo), in principle this opens up the field of speakers that will sound "good" to the consumer, rather than just sticking to those that sound good in mono.
3. Blind Speaker Tests in general: The blinded speaker research so often cited here seems clearly sound and informative. Informative in terms of establishing, in blind tests, strictly on sonic attributes, what people tend to prefer. However, again, pondering the implications is interesting. As I've argued before, there is a conundrum, perhaps even a paradox, lurking in the relevance of the research for consumers. It seems mostly just assumed that the result of the blinded conditions are relevant to the sighted conditions in which consumers will actually be listening to speakers. It's generally asserted as helping guide our speaker purchases. Yet...as far as I'm aware, there is little if any data showing how preferences established in blind listening tests predict preferences in sighted listening conditions. It's just sort of assumed there is some relevance. (And insofar as we are presented results of sighted vs blind tests, it is typically used to emphasize the differences, the unreliability of sighted listening, rather than the reverse: searching for how the blind test results might share any through-line trends with sighted test results).
The problem inherent in this situation is that: If such studies demonstrated that what is perceived in the blind listening tests predicted what is perceived in the sighted listening results, that necessarily erodes the relevance of the blind listening tests. It would suggest the relevant "good sound" characteristics can be evaluated in sighted listening too. But to the degree such studies would fail to predict sighted listening preferences from the blind test results...that too would erode the relevance of the blind tests to the actual use-case scenario for speakers. So we have this apparent gap...right where you'd want the research to be demonstrated as relevant!
Given this gap, in terms of the relevant to our preferences for sound, what kind of rational is there for choosing the speakers that measure in ways that people select in blind testing? It would seem the best one could say is that it satisfies someone's intellectual itch, that they at least know "this is rigorously determined as the best sound in blind tests." So in a way it's like specs-chasing SINAD, where one chooses the best SINAD (or other distortion metric) measuring component, from among others that are already below audible distortion, just for a sense of peace of mind or intellectual satisfaction. But moving beyond that to anything like "I've chosen this because I will perceive the sound as better under my sighted listening conditions" seems to bring on the issues cited above.
(As I've said, this is not so much a problem if we take sighted listening to be at least accurate enough, perhaps over time, to what we'd hear in blinded conditions).
tuga
Major Contributor
How can you evaluate the stereo effect with a single speaker?
I don't see them as the same thing. Passing the file through a medium, electronic or acoustic, should yield the same signal if accuracy to the file is the goal. For a single speaker, this is achievable in theory, but not when going stereo.Your initial question was: "Accuracy to the recording or accuracy to what is heard in the studio?"
To me, that is the same thing, because there is in most cases no "complete music file" or a "final record" before it is heard, mixed, and finalized in the studio.
1. That final record, i.e. the digital file was most commonly a mix out of 20 (or more) separate tracks before it was mixed down to a stereo track.
2. All those separate tracks were heard and mixed in the studio, which means that there was no complete record before it was heard and mixed in the studio.
3. The record was most likely mixed with a pair of studio monitors set up in a traditional equilateral stereo configuration. That means that the overall sound of the final mix will sound somewhat the same on other sound systems with a similar stereo setup (minus some different colorations of different sound systems).
4. Most of those separate tracks were also most likely equalized until the mixing engineer found them sounding "right" to him, and until they did fit together with the rest of the tracks in the mix in the final panning position within the mix.
5. If the mixing engineer did find those "stereo faults" making the phantom sounds in the mix sound somewhat wrong to him, he would most likely address those faults at the same time as he EQ those individual sounds in the mix. And it doesn't matter much if the mixing engineer has a deeper knowledge of the "stereo faults" or not, because he will sculpture those individual tracks until he likes what he hears and if those stereo faults are obvious they will most likely be addressed "with the rest of the EQ package".
A stereo mix will never sound "right" outside the so-called sweet spot. Listening to a stereo track has and will always be a "one-man sport", therefore, the mixing engineer will in most cases almost completely ignore how the mix sound to a casual listener outside that sweet spot, because that person is most likely not listening critically to the stereo mix anyway. (Yes, we are talking about this again)
The second accuracy goal - to sound identical to the final product in the studio. Then we should copy both on-axis frequency response and the DR ratio. If we can copy on-axis frequency response (and playing at a given reference SPL to take care of FL-M curve), we would not improve accuracy if we e.g. use a speaker setup with higher DR ratio than that used in the studio.
In your example it’s not the drivers but the horn that increased the efficiency. Drivers are standard, off-the-shelf units. You increase efficiency slightly but create a speaker which is challenging to use in a domestic room. What is needed is a complete paradigm change where the efficiency is increased by order of magnitude.
Imagine the audio system when average efficiency is 130dB/W or more. Everything we take it for granted will change, everything! Why would we need a power amplifier when a headphone output can power any speaker to deafening levels.
That is what I’m talking about.
tuga
Major Contributor
There's no doubt about the merits of blind testing and if there's one goal that Toole's research has achieved it is to remove bias.
But it was such a difficult goal to implement with speakers that it made the listening tests unfit for purpose (I am referring to the various shufflers).
Yes, that’s the word I used.
The Harman shufflers are a brilliant idea, same piece of music, level matched within four seconds, I really can’t understand your continuing ridicule of them.
Keith
Keith
tuga
Major Contributor
Have you heard of compression drivers?
PRO-HF-UNITS — TAD LABORATORIES
It still seems there is a lot left on the table with Driver design and manufacturing prior to having a finished Speaker. Without the best design principles behind the Driver, what good is anything more when looking at a finished loudspeaker? If a Driver compresses and distorts at 1/3 it's stroke, for example, what good is it if it is still not capable of outputting a +20dB dynamic peak over your base SPL? When I talk to other people who are more experienced designers, why does "Theoretical" ever get applied to Xmax?
These seem like legitimate shortcoming in Driver design which will also impact how they perform in a finished Speaker.
These seem like legitimate shortcoming in Driver design which will also impact how they perform in a finished Speaker.
Why do you think I used the phrase off-the-shelf drivers?Have you heard of compression drivers?
PRO-HF-UNITS — TAD LABORATORIES
www.technicalaudiodevices.com
I think I should stop this chat as it’s obvious I couldn’t explain what I mean to you and it seems to me you are arguing for the sake of arguing.
I like where you are coming from.
I still wonder what other gains can be realized in a Driver other than just making it more efficient at converting signal to sound, though, compared to focussing on stroke and linear performance at Xmax for example?
WoW! I just dropped in from a DC current class D thread. LoL>I like where you are coming from.
I still wonder what other gains can be realized in a Driver other than just making it more efficient at converting signal to sound, though, compared to focussing on stroke and linear performance at Xmax for example?
Similar threads
