• 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?

OP
MattHooper

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,194
Likes
11,806
What a shock that you chose to double down!

Regarding "begging the question" did you even read the quote you started with? Read it again, slowly, with some help:

The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it.

Begging the question concerns an "argument."

Do you see the squiggly thing at the end of my thread title, one of these - ?

That means it's a question. Do you know the difference between a question and an argument?

It was explicit in my OP that I was not making an argument for the truth of my anecdotes. Remember this that you keep ignoring?

Now, that's just accounting for why this question was on my mind. Anyone can simply ignore the above example (it's just my subjective impressions after all) but still get to the issue I'm wondering about..

That little squiggly thing shows up again when I repeat my question in the body of the OP: 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?

Those squiggly marks continued:

"Are we done? Or is there more to achieve in terms of materials and design (drivers, cabinets etc)? Is a very flat frequency response all there is (since resonances will purportedly show up in frequency response)? Or could we take a speaker that measures very even, yet some upgrade in driver material/design or even more reduction in cabinet resonances may yield even higher sonic performance, retrieving some subtle details that were obscured before?"

As I've explained, it's all an open question. The question takes the assumption that speakers are capable of distorting recorded content, which is like starting a cartography question with the assumption we live on a spherical planet. What do you get out of playing a Flat Earther here?

You say you are an AES member. That means you may have knowledge that could bear on the question of this thread, so you could make good-faith contributions conversation like many others are doing. Instead, you spend all your time engaged in "gotcha-chasing" and trying to persecute some imagined case against the OP.
"Don't tell me what you mean, I'll tell YOU what you mean!"

Why not do something useful instead?


In other words, you assume without proof the stand/position, or a significant part of the stand, that is in question.

:)
Zero controls.
Zero blinding.
Zero level matching.
Zero accounting for +/- 20 db differences in room < 500hz (but it's...investigate the speaker for hiding/retrieving "detail"!)
Zero idea "what is on recording" without transduction, by...loudspeakers. In rooms. That Circle...again.
And now, exact same response as I gave several times in thread already:

That poor, irrelevant strawman.

Picture
 
Last edited:

fredoamigo

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 11, 2018
Messages
600
Likes
987
Location
South East France
IMD is definitely a lot more audible than THD. That we know. But IMD is likely still not sufficient.

We are dealing with something we are to able hear quite easily, but don't have the right measuring tool at the moment or we are uncertain which is the right one(s). It's the case with both speakers and headphones. Considering there isn't much money to make on high fidelity, not much research is going in to it either.
there has been some research on the subject.
here on IMD high frequency .
https://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20230523/20459.pdf
 
Last edited:

tuga

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
3,984
Likes
4,281
Location
Oxford, England
There's a big difference between that and me saying "but I don't like B&W speakers", or,say, @tuga saying that he does (I think that's right?). And I would never argue that tuga is wrong to prefer B&W because Toole says he shouldn't.

I do like one B&W model and that is the '70s pre-Matrix 801F/Series 80 with the silk-dome tweeter and the sealed bass bin. It's one of the best speakers I've listened to.
I have listened to several generations of 800-series and also the Nautilus and I would't want any of them to be honest. I owned the 802 Series 3 and it was an ear-bleeding mistake.
 

Ron Texas

Master Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2018
Messages
6,074
Likes
8,906
Is detail real, or is it just a bump in the frequency response somewhere/
 

tuga

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
3,984
Likes
4,281
Location
Oxford, England
Is detail real, or is it just a bump in the frequency response somewhere/

Detail is whatever (signal) is in the file or disc. Distortions and noise prevent the signal from being accurately reproduced.
When listeners describe hearing 'more' detail it can be either or both a deviation from flat FR, a resonance but also lower levels of distortions. They're not hearing more than what's in the support but rather more than what they could hear with a different equipment/system/reference.
 

krabapple

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
3,168
Likes
3,712
So larger speakers would seem to have distortion under control other than the bass. So less bass distortion, and I'd think what is left is further resonance reduction.

One way less bass distortion from the mains could be achieved at perhaps lower cost is by....bass management and a sub.

The classic audiophile focus on 2-channel systems is the root of many...'issues'...in speaker discussions. In many cases the wider world has moved on from all that.
 

krabapple

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
3,168
Likes
3,712
Have you any idea of how often the expression "seems to" or "seems like" pops up in Toole's work?
Your Black & White views and Absolute Certainties sound like dogma, not Science.

Toole is a good scientist and thus knows how to qualify results.
 
OP
MattHooper

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,194
Likes
11,806
Is detail real, or is it just a bump in the frequency response somewhere/

That's why I added the caveat to my question in the OP:

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?
(I add "neutral" because of course one can always hype a speaker's high frequency response to increase perceived detail...that's not what I'm talking about).
 

krabapple

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
3,168
Likes
3,712
This is that audiophile paradox again. How different is anyone's hearing (assuming no significant hearing damage) from that of anyone else in a similar age range, in practice?
In blind testing, you are likely to prefer a similar response to anyone else taking the same test. No "quirky reasoning" there at all.

It's possible that a small percentage of people who do differ could provide enough actual bodies to drive the subjectivist side of the audio "debate": particularly, that that small percentage may also be driven by hearing mainstream devices differently, to look for alternatives and be over-represented in audiophilia as a result.

The result for most people is that Toole's results give a good starting point for the majority of people, but are not necessarily the end point in selection of equipment. I still recommend auditioning from accurate electronics and speakers matching the results well as the first step, because the majority will find their preferred system, even allowing for sighted audition and listening, among those products. If they really all don't work for you, then just move on and audition more widely. I believe that is what the science around preference tells us.

Toole knows and reports data about different cohorts of listeners having different preferences. Specifically: people involved in audio production differ from us 'civilians'. Like so much else...it's in his book.

AFAIR, self-identified civilian 'audiophiles' didn't distinguish themselves from the common folk, though I would not be surprised if this could use more study.

Also note: Harman tests already weed out listeners with standard listening impairments, -- a category I , Floyd Toole, and no doubt a lot of you and a great many in this hobby would already be in, given the age skew of this forum.
 

Ron Texas

Master Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2018
Messages
6,074
Likes
8,906
That's why I added the caveat to my question in the OP:

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?
(I add "neutral" because of course one can always hype a speaker's high frequency response to increase perceived detail...that's not what I'm talking about).
Well, I guess you covered all the bases. Maybe you should try drafting income tax regulations.
 

Galliardist

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 26, 2021
Messages
2,558
Likes
3,273
Location
Sydney. NSW, Australia
I do like one B&W model and that is the '70s pre-Matrix 801F/Series 80 with the silk-dome tweeter and the sealed bass bin. It's one of the best speakers I've listened to.
I have listened to several generations of 800-series and also the Nautilus and I would't want any of them to be honest. I owned the 802 Series 3 and it was an ear-bleeding mistake.
Sorry - I think I've confused your personal preference with an argument you made in a different thread.
 

Galliardist

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 26, 2021
Messages
2,558
Likes
3,273
Location
Sydney. NSW, Australia
Toole knows and reports data about different cohorts of listeners having different preferences. Specifically: people involved in audio production differ from us 'civilians'. Like so much else...it's in his book.

AFAIR, self-identified civilian 'audiophiles' didn't distinguish themselves from the common folk, though I would not be surprised if this could use more study.

Also note: Harman tests already weed out listeners with standard listening impairments, -- a category I , Floyd Toole, and no doubt a lot of you and a great many in this hobby would already be in, given the age skew of this forum.
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.
 

Galliardist

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 26, 2021
Messages
2,558
Likes
3,273
Location
Sydney. NSW, Australia
Detail is whatever (signal) is in the file or disc. Distortions and noise prevent the signal from being accurately reproduced.
When listeners describe hearing 'more' detail it can be either or both a deviation from flat FR, a resonance but also lower levels of distortions. They're not hearing more than what's in the support but rather more than what they could hear with a different equipment/system/reference.
It can also come from having more certainty in what they are hearing, at least in a sighted test where factors other than the sound waves contribute to the interpretation.
 

RayDunzl

Grand Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
13,198
Likes
16,981
Location
Riverview FL
Doppler:

Is it a speaker cone problem?

Or is it baked into the signal and there's nothing to be done about it?

The mix of the two frequencies would seem to me to have some built-on Doppler distorsion.

It wouldn't exist if the two frequencies were produced by separate drivers, though.

Looks like it largely can't be avoided, to me.

So, ???

1684891495293.png
 

Galliardist

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 26, 2021
Messages
2,558
Likes
3,273
Location
Sydney. NSW, Australia
In case I've got the audiophile mindset wrong. I've never heard (sic!) of an audiophile who does not "explain" why a certain "solution" is preferable by objective means.

Calming down hot electrons in cables, single source speakers with no (!) timing issues, avoiding resonances in crossovers, you name it. There's always a rationale, in contrast to just and only subjective liking.

In parts the spinorama may replace the usual nonsense for equally minded individuals. Not saying that the spinorama is nonsense in any way, I appreciate it way way more than those, it is based on some liking, an inherently unquestioned subjective verdict. A funny twist indeed.

My target point is, why a request for more of something ("resolution") doesn't start with personal experience. Some proof of work, if you will. Trying to grasp the problem and only after look out for a solution.

Why don't you trust yourselves?

I investigated my own ability to identify intermodulation and harmonic distortion for instance. This is my guideline when objectively evaluating speakers. I know--for myself, which is the only relevant criteria, the heck, what would be good enough for me. It led me to avoid the all too common two way designs. Isn't that an achievement? It took me 20 minutes to get there.
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, equipment and software used, and how you controlled your subjective testing. We need sufficient to judge the method and to be able to replicate your experiment.

As for not trusting ourselves: the point at which many people have reached the conclusions that are predominant on this forum, is exactly the point at which they reached the understanding that we can't trust ourselves, at least in terms of the predominant methods of testing used by most audiophiles, namely uncontrolled sighted listening comparisons. If you haven't got that point, you probably are misconstruing a lot of what is being said here.
 

Aerith Gainsborough

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 4, 2020
Messages
853
Likes
1,280
ps, as to have this clearly on topic: why is it, that the question "What's Left In Speaker Design To Reduce Distortion/Increase Detail Retrieval?" isn't referred to individual experiences? Why is there no investigation by an individual? Why is it that most of us refuse to, say, finding their individual threshold for detecting IM distortion? Is it really just the lack of proficiency? Two sine generators on the p/c, free software, a set of headphones, ... no deal (compared to buying new speakers), right?! Why the explicated enforcement of a 'scientific', objective approach when on the other hand even Toole relies on subjective preference?
I tried that a long time ago and came to the conclusion that I am horrible at recognizing such distortion in actual musical content.

I think I needed a whopping 3% on average or so, it was frequency dependent, of course going down to 1%ish in the 1-4KHz area and up to 10% in the deep bass.
And that was a SIGHTED test, where I knew the distortion was there.

This taught me that unless I actually go through the length to train my ears, distortion in modern equipment (even speakers) is a complete non issue, given Amir-senpai's measurements of the gear I have.

To chose the speaker that statistically by chance was chosen by others as preferrable and henceforth think of it as optimum or even as "correct", as reference they say.
If you are referring to the Harman curve for headphones: yes, people here suggest it as a sensible starting point in one's search for a sonic signature and I concur. I do not believe that serious members advertise it as the "end all-be all" though. Everyone with a scientific mind knows, that each persons ears have their own frequency response, leading to different perceptions and preferences.

Speakers are a little easier: ´generally a neutral sonic signature is recommended (anechonic flat), because then it is much easier for DSP to shape the signature to one's liking / room compared to having to fight against a "baked in" house curve.
 

tuga

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
3,984
Likes
4,281
Location
Oxford, England
It can also come from having more certainty in what they are hearing, at least in a sighted test where factors other than the sound waves contribute to the interpretation.

And we can add references or benchmarks, i.e. systems which are more 'transparent' or reproduce the recording more accurately than our own.
 
Last edited:

Leif

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2023
Messages
63
Likes
67
For me, with a modest system, the main issues are the room and the recordings. 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, and sometimes the sound clips, sometimes the mics are poorly placed, sometimes the mix is strange. My recordings vary hugely in quality. And I have a small room, with reflections everywhere.

However, has your friend with the $65,000 system thought of upgrading it with a capacitor kit from GR Research? Get back to us and let us know that the improvement was indeed huge please. (1)

(1) Yes, sarcasm. I’m English. What do you expect?
 
Top Bottom