Your loudspeakers are too small!

[Robin L]

So what are you guys opinions on the various digital grand pianos with speakers inside?

Yamaha is pretty good at this thing. Their [damn fine] concert Grand Pianos probably give them a lot of insight into how a reproduction of that should sound. There's a lot to be said for electronic keyboards: the typical upright that can live in most domestic spaces is a monster to keep in tune.

 

[mightycicadalord]

Enough said....

For you guys for sure.

Yes Robin my upright is a pain to keep in tune, and expensive. The sustain pedal also squeeks badly and the last tuner who came out couldn't track it down, said it likely need to be taken apart to a fair degree to fix.

 

[Ken1951]

The best I've ever heard solo piano sound was many years ago in a highish-end store that was in what was for want of better words a mansion. The system was in the ballroom and used Infinity IRS driven by serious power. I've never heard anything better and likely never will. In my personal case the Focal Chorus 707S system that we started with in the GR of our new house in 2004 just could not get the job done in the 19' ceiling room that was also open on two sides as well. That same system sound incredible in our MBR with only 9' a ceiling. The Paradigm Signature S8 system that's in our GR now does the job really well. Horses for courses I guess.

 

[Robin L]

Yamaha is pretty good at this thing. Their [damn fine] concert Grand Pianos probably give them a lot of insight into how a reproduction of that should sound. There's a lot to be said for electronic keyboards: the typical upright that can live in most domestic spaces is a monster to keep in tune.

OTOH, the clavichord is the perfect practice keyboard. Too quiet to be heard by more than one person. The keyboard action can bend pitch if pushed, giving perfect feedback for touch and smoothness of articulation.

 

[SIY]

I distinguish piano-in-my-room from sound of piano-and-me-in-a different-room with me at an audience distance. The former is a physical impossibility, and why do that? For the latter, a few people have nailed it (like TRT), so it's definitely achievable.

 

[Kvalsvoll]

What might this higher noise floor from spectrally-degraded reflections sound like? Well, it would tend to mask the softest sounds on the recording, those at the bottom end of the recording's dynamic range. A lay person might hear this and describe is as a loss of the quietest gradations of dynamic contrast, or as a loss of... microdynamics.

Yes that's right. I have offered a technical explanation for a non-linear change in transfer function based on the reflections being a part of the signal chain. The psychoacoustic effect of spectrally-degraded reflections shows up as a higher perceived noise floor, which correspondingly reduces the ear's ability to hear the softest dynamic variations on the recording. "Microdynamics" may not be a term that people here are comfortable with but in this context there is a technical explanation which includes loudspeaker radiation patterns, and there is a tendency for larger loudspeakers to have more favorable radiation pattern behavior in this area.

Noise floor is a good term for this reflected energy, as this is descriptive of how it affects the sound - masking the original signal. This masking affect timbre of instruments, instrument separation, clarity, rendering of images.

The system itself is not non-linear, it is linear by definition.

Non-linear faults will only be significant once capacity limits are reached, which can occur at quite low volume with small speakers, but the difference between small and large is still present even at low volume. So non-linear distortion and capacity is not the only difference.

Differences in directivity causes differences in this noise floor, and this is why the small speaker can never be changed to sound equal to the large by equalizing the frequency response.

 

[puppet]

Substituting nomenclature makes zero difference IMO. You can blame my attitude on George Carlin.

But I still understand the nature of thing you exhibit concern with.

I want to know what limits it.

I think right now that answer is noise performance, distortion at required driver x, and I suspect stored energy/inertia within the speaker system.

I'm using terms that are pretty much universal with regards to loudspeaker description(s).
As for what might limit a loudspeaker from an ideal ... I think you've covered a few of the items. In addition to that, it just may be that certain driver designs lend themselves to providing better detail than others. Those may lack higher sensitivity or the ability to handle increased power in exchange however. Choosing which depends on what we can and are willing to compromise.

 

[gnarly]

Yes that's right. I have offered a technical explanation for a non-linear change in transfer function based on the reflections being a part of the signal chain. The psychoacoustic effect of spectrally-degraded reflections shows up as a higher perceived noise floor, which correspondingly reduces the ear's ability to hear the softest dynamic variations on the recording. "Microdynamics" may not be a term that people here are comfortable with but in this context there is a technical explanation which includes loudspeaker radiation patterns, and there is a tendency for larger loudspeakers to have more favorable radiation pattern behavior in this area.

I think there might be a way to measure "microdynamics" and somewhat in line with what you are saying about the noise floor.
In the Speaker Reviews forum, there was a recent thread (can't remember which) that talked about MTF, modulation transfer function, that is kind of a measure of how discernable is rapid on-off.
Or my extrapolated take is .......'how quiet does a speaker get in between notes, transients, signal, etc.?'

I've been in search of new measurement techniques that might show more than transfer functions, because not to toot my own horn, it's become all too easy with today's processing tools to get near perfect mag and phase traces on whatever type speaker i build......and STILL have speakers sound differently, even when the builds are for the most part similar..

Anyway, a search for MTF, Tom Danley's posts, MATT test.....should find the thread if there's any interest.

 

[mhardy6647]

I admire your energy.

and finger muscles...

 

[Duke]

I don't know if I believe all of it but DANG! you sure typed it out well. An enjoyable read and nice post.

Thank you Doctor. I try to at least talk a good game!

Seriously if you see mistakes let me know.

Noise floor is a good term for this reflected energy, as this is descriptive of how it affects the sound - masking the original signal. This masking affect timbre of instruments, instrument separation, clarity, rendering of images.

The system itself is not non-linear, it is linear by definition.

Thank you.

I may well have been incorrect to use the term "non-linear" in this context. I was thinking about the spectral content of the reflections varying over time and level as they decay, and including them as part of "the system's" transfer function. But I may have been mixing things that should be kept separate.

edit: I edited the post so that there's now a question mark attached to my use of the term "non-linear".

 

[MattHooper]

No speakers reproduces a piano realistically.

From what I've heard, I agree. But that's not the point. Why make "Perfection" the enemy of "The Good?"

Even if perfect reproduction of a piano is impossible, we can still notice movement toward or away from that criteria. A recorded voice or piano can still sound more or less realistic/natural than another, even if perfect reproduction isn't possible.

 

[MattHooper]

There is no specific term for those things, the inability of a system to reproduce the full dynamic range of a recording is a function of a variety of factors.

Subjective review terms like 'micro' and 'macro' dynamics have no correlation to anything in the real world. They are just terms that came into some writer's mind when he was penning his waffle and then passed into the lexicon.

You defined what those terms mean to you, fair enough, but I wonder if other people's definitions of them would be different? I suspect many of them would be.

I think we'd just be going in circles on this one.

 

[mightycicadalord]

They keep making dynamics bigger and bigger, and smaller and smaller, soon the medium sized dynamics will be a things of the past.

 

[Robin L]

They keep making dynamics bigger and bigger, and smaller and smaller, soon the medium sized dynamics will be a things of the past.

“She had heard all about excluded middles ; they were bad shit, to be avoided...”​

― Thomas Pynchon, The Crying of Lot 49

 

[MattHooper]

MattHooper ... A loudspeaker can be dynamic and also lack detail and vice versa. Your example loudspeaker that reproduces guitar accurately may loose it's composure when turned up to levels matching an orchestra, as you state. The sense of power/energy (dynamics) vs the ability to distinguish separate sounds (detail).

So, one could say "Loudspeaker X is dynamic but lacks detail." and vice versa. The use of the term "micro dynamics" should instead be "detail" and "macro dynamics" just "dynamics" to define a loudspeakers power/energy or lack thereof.

Thanks for the elaboration.

The problem I have there is that you are using a term "detail" that is already often used to describe different characteristics, so it seems to muddy the waters. So for instance any track is absolutely full of "details" to notice, but plenty of those don't relate directly to what we normally talk about with terms like "dynamics."

"Details" is a term that can be used to describe sonic elements large and obvious - from the sound of drums, the production character, who the vocalist is etc - to the most minute - for instance, being able to hear the tonal/timbral characteristics of brushes on a snare played subtley in a mix, or the timbral nuances of different metal or wooden materials (cymbals etc), or hearing very delicate reverb trails in the mix.

Whereas the loudness contrast I've been referring to - the difference of force between say guitar picked notes and hence the dynamics therein - are a *specific type* of detail, and merits therefore a distinct description. And we already have this distinction available DYNAMICS (vs just the more vague "detail."). Then we can talk about whether it makes sense to break it down even further to different scales of dynamics. And since such differences exist, why wouldn't we do so?

After all, musicians can refer to two basic expressions of loudness: "Piano" (quiet) and "Forte" (loud)

But there is more expression in music than just the softest and loudest one can play, so there are more categories added in between, e.g.

• mp, standing for mezzo-piano, meaning "moderately quiet".
• mf, standing for mezzo-forte, meaning "moderately loud".
• più p, standing for più piano and meaning "more quiet".
• più f, standing for più forte and meaning "more loud".
• 
  
• pp, standing for pianissimo and meaning "very quiet".
• ff, standing for fortissimo and meaning "very loud".
• ppp ("triple piano"), standing for pianississimo and meaning "very very quiet".
• fff ("triple forte"), standing for fortississimo and meaning "very very loud".[6]

Musicians had to come up with these descriptions because there were real world differences to describe and communicate. They aren't scientifically precise terms...but that doesn't entail they aren't referring to real differences, or that they are useless terms, right?

And since there ARE differences in dynamics that really matter - your system may be able to reproduce the dynamic range found in a guitar but NOT the dynamic range found in an orchestral piece - why in the world resist further categorization via talk of "dynamics?"

Cheers.

 

[MattHooper]

I distinguish piano-in-my-room from sound of piano-and-me-in-a different-room with me at an audience distance. The former is a physical impossibility, and why do that? For the latter, a few people have nailed it (like TRT), so it's definitely achievable.

That's a good distinction. When I would playback recordings I'd made of instruments we play in our house (and sometimes to live vs playback comparisons), the sound sitting in the room in front of the speakers could never be fully convincing. But when listening from outside the room down the hall, the reproduced instruments could sound quite convincing.

 

[caught gesture]

Thanks for the elaboration.

The problem I have there is that you are using a term "detail" that is already often used to describe different characteristics, so it seems to muddy the waters. So for instance any track is absolutely full of "details" to notice, but plenty of those don't relate directly to what we normally talk about with terms like "dynamics."

"Details" is a term that can be used to describe sonic elements large and obvious - from the sound of drums, the production character, who the vocalist is etc - to the most minute - for instance, being able to hear the tonal/timbral characteristics of brushes on a snare played subtley in a mix, or the timbral nuances of different metal or wooden materials (cymbals etc), or hearing very delicate reverb trails in the mix.

Whereas the loudness contrast I've been referring to - the difference of force between say guitar picked notes and hence the dynamics therein - are a *specific type* of detail, and merits therefore a distinct description. And we already have this distinction available DYNAMICS (vs just the more vague "detail."). Then we can talk about whether it makes sense to break it down even further to different scales of dynamics. And since such differences exist, why wouldn't we do so?

After all, musicians can refer to two basic expressions of loudness: "Piano" (quiet) and "Forte" (loud)

But there is more expression in music than just the softest and loudest one can play, so there are more categories added in between, e.g.

• mp, standing for mezzo-piano, meaning "moderately quiet".
• mf, standing for mezzo-forte, meaning "moderately loud".
• più p, standing for più piano and meaning "more quiet".
• più f, standing for più forte and meaning "more loud".
• 
  
• pp, standing for pianissimo and meaning "very quiet".
• ff, standing for fortissimo and meaning "very loud".
• ppp ("triple piano"), standing for pianississimo and meaning "very very quiet".
• fff ("triple forte"), standing for fortississimo and meaning "very very loud".[6]

Musicians had to come up with these descriptions because there were real world differences to describe and communicate. They aren't scientifically precise terms...but that doesn't entail they aren't referring to real differences, or that they are useless terms, right?

And since there ARE differences in dynamics that really matter - your system may be able to reproduce the dynamic range found in a guitar but NOT the dynamic range found in an orchestral piece - why in the world resist further categorization via talk of "dynamics?"

Cheers.

Dynamics when applied to music are relative and do not refer to specific volume levels. There is no reason why a small speaker cannot reproduce the dynamic range of an orchestra unless it is playing the quieter passages at high volume. Obviously then it will go into distortion when the relative dynamics increase with very loud passages. That would be the same with a larger speaker though as well.

 

[mhardy6647]

“She had heard all about excluded middles ; they were bad shit, to be avoided...”​

― Thomas Pynchon, The Crying of Lot 49

Big points on the scoreboard of life for quoting Pynchon.

 

[Robin L]

Big points on the scoreboard of life for quoting Pynchon.

Sorry, can't help but be obsessed.

This is what happens when you get your first copy of "The Crying of Lot 49" out of a trash can.

Now say "rich, chocolaty goodness".

 

[DWPress]

Well since my speakers are 172 liters sealed with 15" bass drivers + a couple subs I gotta go with bigger is better. Active XOs are the icing on the cake. I live deep in the woods, no neighbors and the noise floor in my shop is about 33dB which gives dynamic recordings plenty of room and jazz and classical have lots of space during quieter passages.

The W and M are both pro audio drivers with higher sensitivity than most home audio offerings and pair nicely with some ribbons in waveguides for my unconventional placement. The system sounds good at any volume level and can achieve 115dB easy and cleanly with tight hits in the chest if you want - 60-85dB is full body goodness. I've heard lots of small speakers that sound great or passable up to a certain SPL but then the limitations of the drivers enclosures takes over.

Not here to convince anybody. Visit someone with a thoughtful "big" setup and judge for yourself.