How do you know what you want from your system?

[muon*]

Huh, again I see tonality aligned with FR, not in my world where that is frequency balance, and tonality is a separate and different thing.

 

Edit: when you adjust bass and treble levels with the poorly named 'tone controls' It's the same (but more limited) as EQ, you are altering the frequencies not the tone or the tonality.

The definition of tone or tonality never mentions frequency or frequencies.

Edited July 18, 2023 by muon*

[sir sanders zingmore]

2 hours ago, Keith_W said:

 

You know, looking at your graphs reminds me of an experience I had with @sir sanders zingmore. @aris had brought over a valve amp and we listened to it back to back with his SS amp (I think it was a Sanders Magtech). I know it is an audiophile trope to say "night and day" difference, but the difference between the two amps was pretty unbelievable. The entire tonality was different, to me the magnitude of difference was the same as switching between DSP filters. I could barely believe it so I asked if he could take some sweeps. I was quite surprised to see that the sweeps looked the same between the two amps. 

Keith my memory of this is different - it’s also a bit vaguer so I might be wrong….

As I recall we switched between the Magtech and the Octave without remeasuring to take into account the different gains of the amps. This is important because there was also a subwoofer in the system. 

I think we assumed that the two amps had the same gain (and therefore would cross identically with the sub). 
On reflection I think this is a poor assumption. 
 

I don’t recall measuring the two amps side by side (not moving the mic, just changing amps). I’ll have a look to see if I still have any measurements that I did. However my recollection is that they were similar rather than identical. 
 

So my summary of what we heard is that they seemed different (and I preferred the magtech while you and @aris thought I was nuts). But my personal opinion is that the difference could well have been contributed to by the different relative volume of the sub 

[Keith_W]

12 minutes ago, sir sanders zingmore said:

Keith my memory of this is different - it’s also a bit vaguer so I might be wrong….

As I recall we switched between the Magtech and the Octave without remeasuring to take into account the different gains of the amps. This is important because there was also a subwoofer in the system. 

I think we assumed that the two amps had the same gain (and therefore would cross identically with the sub). 
On reflection I think this is a poor assumption. 
 

I don’t recall measuring the two amps side by side (not moving the mic, just changing amps). I’ll have a look to see if I still have any measurements that I did. However my recollection is that they were similar rather than identical. 
 

So my summary of what we heard is that they seemed different (and I preferred the magtech while you and @aris thought I was nuts). But my personal opinion is that the difference could well have been contributed to by the different relative volume of the sub 

 

Haha, yes I did think that you were nuts to prefer the Magtech  If swapping the amps meant a difference in the relative output of the sub then yes the experiment wasn't really valid then. But I do seem to recall pulling out my phone to check if the SPL was the same - although I was verifying the "rough" volume equivalence using music rather than pink noise. 

[frednork]

20 hours ago, davewantsmoore said:

I understand.   It is not an easy thing..... and many many times, data tells us nothing relevant about the question, or leads to wrong conclusions.

 

Coming from a research background I totally get this.  But I guess it also doesnt make me very interested in putting in effort to show that there was no FR difference (as could be shown in that type of test) as the way to do that is unknown for me and I also get why you cant say" just do this and this" because it depends.  And I know you said it was to prove it to myself but I am satisfied without that sort of proof that there is a clear difference and I know (every day when I listen) I am far better off with the A/B's at least on the higher frequencies..  

 

Again, for me, I  would not be arguing that there is no difference in a capturable signal but just that the type of test used is not the right one to easily show the difference that is being heard.  Is a simple sine wave sweep really telling us everything about how our equipment is performing when it plays music? Much like a lot of the stuff that is disputed here, I think we are just using the wrong tools for the job we want to perform.

[RoHo]

8 minutes ago, frednork said:

 

Coming from a research background I totally get this.  But I guess it also doesnt make me very interested in putting in effort to show that there was no FR difference (as could be shown in that type of test) as the way to do that is unknown for me and I also get why you cant say" just do this and this" because it depends.  And I know you said it was to prove it to myself but I am satisfied without that sort of proof that there is a clear difference and I know (every day when I listen) I am far better off with the A/B's at least on the higher frequencies..  

 

Again, for me, I  would not be arguing that there is no difference in a capturable signal but just that the type of test used is not the right one to easily show the difference that is being heard.  Is a simple sine wave sweep really telling us everything about how our equipment is performing when it plays music? Much like a lot of the stuff that is disputed here, I think we are just using the wrong tools for the job we want to perform.

A question to ask is how well does a single sine wave sweep at one level correlate with a real music signal?  A big difference is there is no representation of how the FR is changing with with increased level.  Is the amp or speakers imposing a limitation on big dynamic swings?  Erin’s at his Audio Corner publishes dynamic compression data and it clearly shows changes in FR with increased level. 

[frednork]

1 minute ago, RoHo said:

A question to ask is how well does a single sine wave sweep at one level correlate with a real music signal?  A big difference is there is no representation of how the FR is changing with with increased level.  Is the amp or speakers imposing a limitation on big dynamic swings?  Erin’s at his Audio Corner publishes dynamic compression data and it clearly shows changes in FR with increased level. 

Cool, I will need to have a look. Does he show anything comparing amp topologies? 

[Satanica]

15 minutes ago, frednork said:

Cool, I will need to have a look. Does he show anything comparing amp topologies? 

What do you think? EDIT: I think the answer is NO, but I haven't looked at every speaker test he's performed.

Edited July 19, 2023 by Satanica

[frednork]

Just now, Satanica said:

What do you think?

What do you think I think??????

[davewantsmoore]

42 minutes ago, frednork said:

But I guess it also doesnt make me very interested in putting in effort to show that there was no FR difference

The motivation for doing that would need to come from understanding sound and speakers <shrug>

 

42 minutes ago, frednork said:

as the way to do that is unknown for me and I also get why you cant say" just do this and this" because it depends. 

I figured what I wrote above was reasonably clear.   If you want to see "how the transducer moved" in a way which is not swamped by diffraction, etc.... then you can measure close to the transducer, and examine the data for unwanted reflections.

 

42 minutes ago, frednork said:

And I know you said it was to prove it to myself but I am satisfied without that sort of proof that there is a clear difference and I know (every day when I listen)

You seem to misunderstand.

 

This is not about proving that you heard a difference... I'm sure you did.   It is about understanding why.    If hypothetically you were to find out that the difference was FR (think about it... what even else could it be) .... then you might start to learn about why there was different FR (from amplifiers which on a test bench measure flat well beyond the audible spectrum)  .... and might find that if you did something to remove the difference in FR, that the difference you heard went away to ...... leading to a changed understanding, etc. etc. and on and on.

 

42 minutes ago, frednork said:

I am far better off with the A/B's at least on the higher frequencies..  

No doubt.   You got a different result with different amplifiers..... which is very different to saying (and other people taking notice of) "AB are better than D for HF" (or whatever).

 

42 minutes ago, frednork said:

Is a simple sine wave sweep really telling us everything about how our equipment is performing when it plays music?

More than you might think.... and it will almost certainly show up any "audible" differences, even if it doesn't present them in enough detail to understand them.

 

The assumptions and caveats around this is that the equipment is operating within its "comfortable" range..... eg. an amplifier is not being unfairly loaded, or asked to make too much power ...... for speaker drivers this caveat is much less likely to be satisfied (which is why speakers can sound so different from each other) .... but do investigate this, we need more complex signals, at varying drive levels.  (eg. is the FR identical at varying drivel levels .... does a tweeter have stored energy problems when fed complex signals ... what drive levels does this become a problem at .... etc. etc. etc.)

 

So, "tell us everything" is a deep rabbit hole ("everything" is a big word) .... but it will show something, and isn't a useless tool.

 

42 minutes ago, frednork said:

Much like a lot of the stuff that is disputed here, I think we are just using the wrong tools for the job we want to perform.

Sure.    There are ways to see if two amplifiers made a speaker make the same response, or a different response.     An in room measurement is full of diffraction and variability (repeatability with identical result), so doesn't really tell..

Edited July 19, 2023 by davewantsmoore

[davewantsmoore]

20 minutes ago, RoHo said:

A question to ask is how well does a single sine wave sweep at one level correlate with a real music signal?  A big difference is there is no representation of how the FR is changing with with increased level.  Is the amp or speakers imposing a limitation on big dynamic swings?  Erin’s at his Audio Corner publishes dynamic compression data and it clearly shows changes in FR with increased level. 

Yes.

You could do a basic sweep of a speaker, with amp A and amp B ... and see if they are identical.    But then a next step is to do this across all drive levels ... and then certain more complex signals, etc.

 

If we were using amplifiers which were well spec'd for the speaker load .... then we wouldn't really expect to see a change.   But people don't always do this (use and/or compare amplifiers which are well suited).

[davewantsmoore]

1 hour ago, RoHo said:

A question to ask is how well does a single sine wave sweep at one level correlate with a real music signal?

Just to expand (or perhaps simplify) this a little bit, for anyone playing along....

 

If you were to use a "sine wave sweep", for two different amplifiers and one speaker .... and the amps showed different responses.    Then this does (very much) mean they are different.....  it would be wrong to conclude something like:   "oh well, the sweep doesn't really correlate with music... so it doesn't show anything interesting".

 

OTOH... if the simple sweeps didn't show significant differences .... then it doesn't necessarily mean the differences between the amplifiers don't exist, or aren't going to show up in the FR   ....... it just means (as you note) that we need to use different input signals (drive levels, or signal shapes) to uncover it.

 

 

 

[playdough]

Late on board to this thread and read some of it.

Personally own a 4 way horn and cab loaded bass, same problems, except for bass integration.

Seem to hit a glass ceiling for performance with hardware, so, decided to go on a mission of integrating acoustic treatment, carefully and tastefully.  

A brand new lounge, still smell the new paint, laid the custom made 3.5 x 4.6 slate grey woollen "edged" carpet, with cotton underlay, ended up about 80Kg on the suspended, solid hardwood floor. No hardware change had ever been remotely this "constructive" in sub 130Hz bass articulation. 

Pity I can't glue carpet to the ceiling,,,, will work that out and future :).

 Work on the system won't be on hardware so much, mainly room response measurement, positioning and treatment focused. 

Enjoy the day 

 

 

 

 

 

[Assisi]

I have posted a few times in this thread.  In my first post I mentioned realism and feel good.  Expectation outcome aspirations may be different for different people.  The thread is moving into technical matters that mean very little to me.  For example, diffractions in the signal, THD, FR, measurements, preferences in amplifier classes and then there is even more.  Our understandings, experience with perceptions of all these aspects will provide different outcomes for each of us.  Will there ever be agreement what they mean in the context of the sound waves and the relative system outcome  benefits for each of us?

 

 

One word has been mentioned initially by @CN211276 that I consider that is especially important for me.  Transparency.  As I seek an experience of realism, anything that is additional to what my expectations of how the recording should sound like, spoils the listening experience from the aspect of Transparency.  Potentially various interferences and  resonances etc produced by a range of sources can end up in the audio signal and prevail over the Transparency.  For me as I have utilised various strategies to reduce noise floor there has been an enhanced Transparency with my system and the listening pleasure.  The silence between the notes is special.  The visual picture in the brain is emotional.

 

 

Interestingly for me I tend to listen to the musical notes and not the vocals or the voice except with opera.  For some reason my brain seems to focus on the musical notes and ignore or filter out the vocal.

John

[POV]

2 hours ago, playdough said:

Work on the system won't be on hardware so much, mainly room response measurement, positioning and treatment focused. 

 

This is the way in my view.  It took me a long time to realise that there is much, much bigger gains to be had from dealing with room acoustics, and supplementing with DSP than there is from the merrygoround of upgrades to equipment.   I know it's not as sexy, and doesn’t come with the excitement of a new box of tricks, but in terms of sheer performance upgrades it's where everyone should focus their attention if you ask me.

Edited July 19, 2023 by POV

[Keith_W]

42 minutes ago, POV said:

 

This is the way

 

[playdough]

57 minutes ago, POV said:

performance upgrades

Cheers, 100% yea exactly. 

It's like the playing field has changed when the penny drops, another aspect of the hobby with very measurable/audible outcomes.

I could change an Amp/DSP/DAC/signal/speaker cables shedding usually out there, five or more thousands or, spend a thousand or three on the room acoustic consult/materials go head on into the bit of work involved and end with serious SQ improvements

The new wool carpet well cost a bit, however I could have purchased a flash set of speaker cables and not achieved anything, maybe a tone difference, spent too long on that road.

Interesting technical discussion above.

Great minds think alike ! Have a good evening.

 

 

[Grizaudio]

2 hours ago, POV said:

 

This is the way in my view.  It took me a long time to realise that there is much, much bigger gains to be had from dealing with room acoustics, and supplementing with DSP than there is from the merrygoround of upgrades to equipment.   I know it's not as sexy, and doesn’t come with the excitement of a new box of tricks, but in terms of sheer performance upgrades it's where everyone should focus their attention if you ask me.

110% 

 

[POV]

4 hours ago, playdough said:

Cheers, 100% yea exactly. 

It's like the playing field has changed when the penny drops, another aspect of the hobby with very measurable/audible outcomes.

I could change an Amp/DSP/DAC/signal/speaker cables shedding usually out there, five or more thousands or, spend a thousand or three on the room acoustic consult/materials go head on into the bit of work involved and end with serious SQ improvements

The new wool carpet well cost a bit, however I could have purchased a flash set of speaker cables and not achieved anything, maybe a tone difference, spent too long on that road.

Interesting technical discussion above.

Great minds think alike ! Have a good evening.

 

 

 

It's a fascinating phenomenon associated to this hobby, but a great many folks either mostly, or completely ignore room acoustics.  Go for a bit of spin through the My System Today thread and check out some of the amazing systems that folks have set-up in completely untreated rooms.

[muon*]

I'm lucky my room isn't too bad, as I rent and share so to start hanging stuff on the walls I'd be going against the lease agreement I agreed to, and looking for a new rental.

[Keith_W]

55 minutes ago, POV said:

It's a fascinating phenomenon associated to this hobby, but a great many folks either mostly, or completely ignore room acoustics.  Go for a bit of spin through the My System Today thread and check out some of the amazing systems that folks have set-up in completely untreated rooms.

 

I would argue that rooms that have room treatments applied in a haphazard manner are even more detrimental to the sound than untreated rooms. In most rooms, ordinary room furnishing is enough. My usual advice is to put the furniture in, listen (or preferably, measure), then apply some room treatment sparingly. 

[POV]

9 minutes ago, Keith_W said:

I would argue that rooms that have room treatments applied in a haphazard manner are even more detrimental to the sound than untreated rooms.

I made no reference to treating rooms in a haphazard manner.  Interesting viewpoint however. Out of interest, on what basis would you argue this?  

 

11 minutes ago, Keith_W said:

In most rooms, ordinary room furnishing is enough.

Enough for what though?  Every room can be dramatically improved by effective treatment.  I also find this point curious when considering your first point.  Do folks generally choose and position their furniture with effective acoustic treatment in mind or is this an alternative version of ‘haphazard treatment’. 

 

15 minutes ago, Keith_W said:

My usual advice is to put the furniture in, listen (or preferably, measure), then apply some room treatment sparingly. 

OK…well my experience is that the vast majority of rooms are vastly under treated, and what will generally find if you get professional advice is that a significant volume of treatment is generally required.  
 

In most rooms there will be a need to treat front and rear walls, side walls, and ceiling with some combination of absorption, diffusion, and diffraction.  Depending on system setup likely DSP based eq is also required after that in my experience.

[playdough]

2 hours ago, POV said:

need to treat

Yep, no way around it. Another tool, like any other pieces of hardware. Also my experince, with help of an Engineer though, I was a learner and needed help at that "glass ceiling" moment of ignorance. Up and up now I can measure results, unlike with pretty well any hardware change.

 

3 hours ago, Keith_W said:

furnishing is enough. My usual advice

 

I'd quietly engage a well experienced  Acoustic Engineer if my speakers cost more than $50K not offer advice. 

Furnishing is not enough, not even close.

A well treated sound lounge is actually pretty well unforgettable and quite profound. In my case, I was lucky to start the lounge treatments build with bare timber frame and solid hardwood floor mostly built in and invisible at this stage of the job.

I too have a large multiway horn set, took a while to get those worked out.

Bass, or lower than  120Hz  integration/transition  was made possible with room acoustic treatments beyond furniture, mediocre without. 

 

The Engineer will suggest a room can and does dictate how a speaker can be perceived regardless of it's cost.  

 

 

 

Edited July 19, 2023 by playdough

[Keith_W]

I base my assertion that rooms should not be overtreated on Dr. Toole's book. Specifically this (source

 

 

Toole's suggestion is to add normal room furnishings, and then consider minimal room treatment if it is required to get the RT down to target. 

 

What I have seen in many listening rooms which do have room treatment is overzealous application of treatment. This has the effect of distorting the spectral balance of the room, selectively dampening high frequencies whilst leaving bass boomy. 

 

I should point out that different strategies are required to tackle frequencies below and above Schroder. Above Schroder, normal furniture and minimal room treatment if required. Below Schroder, use DSP. In my room, I have a lot of drapes, a thick rug, 2 sofas, and shelves. I do have room treatment panels which I could deploy around the room to increase the effect, but I prefer to have them stacked on the front wall (i.e. about 1.5m behind the speakers) where they contribute very little. 

[POV]

6 minutes ago, Keith_W said:

I base my assertion that rooms should not be overtreated on Dr. Toole's book. Specifically this (source

okay but you talked about ‘haphazard treatment’ not over treatment before.  Of course over-treating a room is not going to lead to good outcomes, but isn’t that stating the obvious?
 

Yes if furniture and fittings in a room bring the rt60 down to an acceptable level then that’s good, but of course reducing reverberation is not the only objective of treatment.  And frankly think that the majority of people never measure so have no idea what is happening in their room.

 

Seriously take a spin through My System Today and have a look at some folks rooms.  You will see many examples of rooms that absolutely don’t have thick carpets, rugs, heavy drapes, bookshelves, etc and rather have plain gyprock walls, exposed windows, hard floors, speakers right next to back and/or side walls etc.  That’s what I was referring to previously.

 

Anyways will leave it there, just don’t want folks with completely untreated, highly reflective and reverberant rooms reading your posts and thinking ‘I’m OK’.

[Keith_W]

Look a bit closer at Fig 16.1b, "average RT for 602 rooms with normal furnishing": 0.4s, +/- 0.1s. So unless a room is REALLY empty, normal furnishings should be enough. Room treatment not needed. This needs to be confirmed with measurements of course. 

 

As an aside, I think that a microphone + REW should be part of every audiophile's toolbox. It really helps you focus in on problem areas that need attention.