is "Voicing" a speaker basically the frequency response of the speaker? - Page 5 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #121 of 131 Old 11-11-2013, 05:44 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 762 Post(s)
Liked: 1175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

On another note, what do you think about Geddes saying who gives a **** about the response above 17 KZ?

Geddes is more than a little hip to psychoacoustics and then there is his wife Lydia (PhD in related field) who was if memory serves, a graduate assistant to some of the big, big names in that field. They talk and co-author papers. ;-)

They know better than to worry about stuff that is inaudible even if it is there. That's common knowledge among people who are well-informed about psychoacoustics. It is the marketers and naive audiophiles who worry about such things.

It is a shock to some that 44/16 was not a substandard expedient choice that was made almost 30 years ago. It has been overkill all along.
arnyk is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #122 of 131 Old 11-11-2013, 06:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Jon Lane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,191
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lane View Post

Then I propose the industry establish a board to provide standards. And a lobby to introduce legislation to enforce those standards.

In this way the collective good will be seen to by the intellectual class most interested in providing for it.

Once done with hifi, imagine the other places we could do similar good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SyntheticShrimp View Post

I'm not sure if you're being facetious...

I was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SyntheticShrimp View Post

...but access to the right measurements, done the right way, serves as a de facto board of standards.

In practice, right is as nebulous as de facto, which was my point.

Jon Lane
Chane Music & Cinema
Jon Lane is offline  
post #123 of 131 Old 11-11-2013, 06:45 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Chu Gai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NYC area
Posts: 14,961
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 314 Post(s)
Liked: 595
Probably the only thing that could be done with some consistency is weighing and measuring the speaker dimensions. Heck, you don't even see consistency when measuring the diameter of a driver.
BufordTJustice likes this.

"I've found that when you want to know the truth about someone that someone is probably the last person you should ask." - Gregory House
Chu Gai is offline  
post #124 of 131 Old 11-11-2013, 04:56 PM
PEB
Member
 
PEB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 15
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Some years back a lawsuit against most ALL major speaker companies was started. The claim was that the cone of an 8" woofer (or whatever size) did not actually provide an 8" cone. Well duh, we all assumed the nominal size was approximate for the frame, and not the cone. We didn't know we had a problem until this a**hole pointed it out to us, in the form of a subpoena.

Ultimately the court did not allow the suit.

Bamberg Audio | Speakers for LifeT M
www.BambergAudio.com

PEB is offline  
post #125 of 131 Old 11-12-2013, 05:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JerryLove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,597
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Geddes is more than a little hip to psychoacoustics and then there is his wife Lydia (PhD in related field) who was if memory serves, a graduate assistant to some of the big, big names in that field. They talk and co-author papers. ;-)
So there's basically complete agreement among all people with such experience that nothing over 17kHz matters?

Or is there disagreement?
JerryLove is offline  
post #126 of 131 Old 11-12-2013, 06:56 PM
Advanced Member
 
bo130's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 521
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by cel4145 View Post

A faithful reproduction and EQ might be an easier path to that means--I am not disagreeing with that--but that does not negate that the primary goal is a pleasurable listening experience.

If the primary goal is a pleasurable listening experience, would that mean that you don't even necessarily need what we would define as high fidelity?

Merriman-Webster lists hi-fi as; " the reproduction of an effect (as sound or an image) that is very faithful to the original "

I'm suggesting that when people say that accuracy (as it is usually referred to in this field) is not important (or as you have defined it as not being a "primary goal"), the first thought that hits my head is that the concept of high fidelity soars out the window too.
bo130 is offline  
post #127 of 131 Old 11-12-2013, 07:48 PM
PEB
Member
 
PEB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 15
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove View Post

So there's basically complete agreement among all people with such experience that nothing over 17kHz matters?

Or is there disagreement?

The older we get, the less we hear in the top octave. So Geddes has a point about content about ~17kHz. This applies to steady-state signals.

However, the higher the system bandwidth, the "quicker" it responds to loud and high-frequency transient signals. For example, I found many line conditioners to subdue the "speed" of my system at shows, and once I take the power amp off the line conditioner, the speed returns (snare drums, etc.).

Even a tweeter spike at or above 15kHz can contribute to the sense of "speed", and yet not be so noticeable as "sizzle", because it can also contribute in a positive way to the in-room power response. Here again is another exception to the flat FR rule in such a way to be a good thing.

Bamberg Audio | Speakers for LifeT M
www.BambergAudio.com

PEB is offline  
post #128 of 131 Old 11-12-2013, 07:48 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
cel4145's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 11,760
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 248 Post(s)
Liked: 781
Quote:
Originally Posted by bo130 View Post

If the primary goal is a pleasurable listening experience, would that mean that you don't even necessarily need what we would define as high fidelity?

Merriman-Webster lists hi-fi as; " the reproduction of an effect (as sound or an image) that is very faithful to the original "

I'm suggesting that when people say that accuracy (as it is usually referred to in this field) is not important (or as you have defined it as not being a "primary goal"), the first thought that hits my head is that the concept of high fidelity soars out the window too.

Accuracy could be important. But accuracy is a means to end, that of having a pleasurable listening experience. For those that value faithful reproduction as the important part of the aesthetic experience, then accuracy would satisfy that primary goal. On the other hand, someone might enjoy a tube amp for whatever distortion that adds over a more linear, accurate solid state amp, which could result in a more pleasurable listening experience for that person.

So the value of thinking of this from an aesthetic experience is to see how insisting accuracy is the primary goal is itself biased towards a certain type of aesthetic experience that is shutting out considering that there might be alternatives.

Your questions are answered: Speaker FAQ
HT: Energy RC-50, RC-LCR, Veritas VS Surrounds | Dual CHT SS 18.1s | Denon AVR-888 | modified Dayton SA1000 | Antimode 8033C
Desktop: CBM-170 SE | SVS SB-1000 | Audio-GD NFB-11 | HK 3390
Headphone & Portable HE-400 | K612 Pro | HP150 | DX50 | E12
cel4145 is offline  
post #129 of 131 Old 11-12-2013, 08:54 PM
Advanced Member
 
bo130's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 521
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by cel4145 View Post

Accuracy could be important. But accuracy is a means to end, that of having a pleasurable listening experience. For those that value faithful reproduction as the important part of the aesthetic experience, then accuracy would satisfy that primary goal. On the other hand, someone might enjoy a tube amp for whatever distortion that adds over a more linear, accurate solid state amp, which could result in a more pleasurable listening experience for that person.

So the value of thinking of this from an aesthetic experience is to see how insisting accuracy is the primary goal is itself biased towards a certain type of aesthetic experience that is shutting out considering that there might be alternatives.

I won't ever argue against personal preference. The essential point in my post is when one moves away from accuracy, is one moving further away from high fidelity as a definition (not a subjective opinion of the term "high fidelity")?
bo130 is offline  
post #130 of 131 Old 11-12-2013, 10:08 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
cel4145's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 11,760
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 248 Post(s)
Liked: 781
Quote:
Originally Posted by bo130 View Post

I won't ever argue against personal preference. The essential point in my post is when one moves away from accuracy, is one moving further away from high fidelity as a definition (not a subjective opinion of the term "high fidelity")?

I would argue that hi-fi, which you quoted above, no longer means hi-fidelity in the audio industry. It's been appropriated so much by marketers and retailers to apply to any kind of audio system that it has become almost meaningless anyway in popular use. And that's been going on for decades. And going back to that definition you referenced above, "very faithful" is a relative term even if applied to hi-fidelity. It's meaningful in relation to something that is less faithful, and what you think is hifi, I might not, or vice versa. Whose to say what is hi-fidelity or not. Unless the idea is that faithfulness comes from "intent" that the audio system be designed to be faithful. However, any design is always a compromise based upon costs, so one is always choosing to make something less faithful than if one had more money to put into manufacturing the product, even if one is aiming for accuracy. Is it only hi-fidelity if the designer chooses to maximize accuracy? So to me, it's just so messy to think about what hi-fidelity REALLY means except as an ideal.

On a whim after writing that above, I looked up "hi-fi" in the Oxford English Dictionary, the Brittanica of dictionaries. They use the following definition and avoid "faithful": "That part of acoustics and electronics that deals with the design, construction, and use of equipment for the recording and reproduction of sound to a fairly high standard." First known use of that word was 1950. Then here is the OED defining hi-fidelity: "In equipment used in the recording and reproduction of sound, the property of producing little distortion in the signal, so that the sound produced bears as close a resemblance as possible to the original. Also applied to the recording of electrical signals generally," 1934 first known usage.

Your questions are answered: Speaker FAQ
HT: Energy RC-50, RC-LCR, Veritas VS Surrounds | Dual CHT SS 18.1s | Denon AVR-888 | modified Dayton SA1000 | Antimode 8033C
Desktop: CBM-170 SE | SVS SB-1000 | Audio-GD NFB-11 | HK 3390
Headphone & Portable HE-400 | K612 Pro | HP150 | DX50 | E12
cel4145 is offline  
post #131 of 131 Old 11-13-2013, 08:18 AM
Advanced Member
 
bo130's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 521
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by cel4145 View Post

Whose to say what is hi-fidelity or not. Unless the idea is that faithfulness comes from "intent" that the audio system be designed to be faithful.

I would say given how far technology has come, both in terms of the electronics side & room acoustics (and the ways that we measure them), it's far easier to achieve a system that has a high degree of fidelity than it ever has before. It is also just as easy to implement a given audio reproduction system to not be accurate, if we deliberately chose to. For example, purchasing a speaker that has a deliberate emphasis or de-emphasis in one or more areas of the audible frequency band.

Deliberately (as in knowingly) wanting to provide something other than a faithful reproduction cannot, by definition, be considered "high fidelity". I'm not saying that someone who does this is wrong, or that their preference is wrong, but it is a deliberate choice to do so.
Quote:
However, any design is always a compromise based upon costs, so one is always choosing to make something less faithful than if one had more money to put into manufacturing the product, even if one is aiming for accuracy. Is it only hi-fidelity if the designer chooses to maximize accuracy? So to me, it's just so messy to think about what hi-fidelity REALLY means except as an ideal.

I wouldn't say that $$ is the only means to achieving high fidelity. Well designed solid state amps, DAC's, CD players - as well as other examples - are virtually indistinguishable (audibly) from one another. One can also find speakers that do not vary much plus or minus 3db across much of the audible spectrum without killing the bank. Plus, one can go about addressing their acoustic environment by doing nothing other than moving their speakers around - which is free.

One can find speakers that may provide a mid-bass hump. One can use a tube amp or play vinyl and reap the benefits of the distortions and other artifacts. But, again, we know that these kinds of things produce "inaccuracies" or distortions. To some, these kinds of distortions or "inaccuracies" are desirable to them. But, it's not - by definition - "high fidelity" (I should say using the definition I gave) when there are alternatives that do not.
bo130 is offline  
Reply Speakers

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off