|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.130.96.11
In Reply to: RE: Or the French horn... posted by genungo on August 29, 2014 at 13:51:19
Standard horns face back as any examination of any major orchestra will reveal.
The horn in the photo is definitely not a standard instrument
Follow Ups:
... is, so many instruments disperse sound in weird omni-polar fashion. Our systems can only create a wavefront that is a highly artificial summation/approximation or the real thing. The true character of instruments and sounds is lost, and regardless of the "polar accuracy" of our systems, the end result will always be a somewhat perverted and farcical presentation. The wavefront presented by live music is too complex and nuanced to be accurately reproduced by speaker systems as they exist today, and "perfect polar" response (or, as close as we can get to it) has not cured the problem, as real instruments and recordings continue to sound different from each other.I've been listening to a pair of speakers that is supposed to offer time/phase coherent behavior. These "augmented single-driver" speakers have tweeters that can be slid fore and aft so that the user can adjust time alignment for listening distance. If I deliberately mis-adjust the tweeters so that optimum coherency is lost, the feeling I get is not so much that of lost *realism* as it is a feeling of *slightly diminished smoothness*. I'm not sure that this experiment shows anything conclusive, but it re-confirms my experience so far: Physical coherency contributes more to a increased sense of smoothness and/or long term "listenability" than it does to an increased sense of *realism* in sonic reproduction.
At best, "perfect (driver) polarity" might provide fleeting waves of sonic respite within a sea of sonic turmoil. Perfect amplitude response and the optimal mixture of direct and reflected sound have shown themselves to be the more important goals to strive for because they contribute most to the impression of realism, for most people. Assuming that we can take the idea of "realism" all that seriously in record playback, that is...
As you have pointed out, AKG has decided that inverted driver polarity sounds best in a pair of headphones, and I'm pretty sure that they must have tried things both ways before deciding on their "signature sound". Could it be that *inversion* naturally shows itself to be a minor issue when *perversion* is the name of the game?
Edits: 08/30/14 08/30/14 08/30/14 08/30/14 08/30/14 08/31/14
is simple: Nothing in acoustical instrumentation in real life ever is reversed in polarity ! QED, simple fact. Oh you can argue the movement of the diaphragms and such but the truth is the sound from a real acoustical instrument is ALWAYS correct.
If you have a driver inverted in polarity, that does not render reality any better and in fact makes it worse.
Why screw up the playback of what is supposed to be reality any further? You are trying to justify your position but you ignore the basic truth of it all; Again, NOTHING IN REAL LIFE USING ACOUSTICAL INSTRUMENTATION IS EVER INVERTED IN ABSOLUTE POLARITY. They may have unique sound properties ( like say a Tabla), but nothing justifies screwing up the final transducers. Well, at least not in my opinion.
That sentence underlines my point: Why screw up the playback? YOU are the one who might advocate screwing up the playback, as far as I can tell...If I were to agree with everything you just said it would probably mean that I was in the habit of trying to listen through an *IDEALISTIC MENTAL CONSTRUCT*, rather than *DIRECTLY WITH MY EARS*. I suspect that you are trying to do the former rather than the latter. But, of course, I can't be sure.
Not that the issue of "perfect polarity" matters all that much, since most of the evidence shows that people perceive little difference between perfect and imperfect. Assuming that there are those who can perceive it, the issue remains moot because there aren't that many perfect recordings around. It's hard to justify being very overly concerned about perfect polarity. There's "a bigger fish to fry.", as they say.
It may be true that "nothing in real life using acoustical instrumentation is inverted in absolute polarity" but we are not talking about real life, we are talking about the *artificial reproduction of a real life event, and/or about that which translates into the most realistic semblance of real life within THAT context*.
The most realistic sounding speakers are not going to be the ones with the most "perfect polarity" UNLESS that pair of speakers also displays the best possible amplitude response and the most favorable dispersion characteristics, IMO. Find a pair of speakers that excels in all of these ways and we might have found the most realistic sounding speakers in the world, as far as I can tell. Please tell me which speakers are *the best* in all of the above ways and I'll do my best to go and audition them for myself.
Based upon my listening experience so far? All I can say is that I agree with many others who feel the same way as me. If anything needs to be sacrificed in a loudspeaker design it had better not be amplitude response and optimum dispersion characteristics. So far, my ears have told me that those are the things that matter most. Time/phase coherence seems to me to be the artificial frosting on the artificial cake, rather than the artificial spongy mass that makes up the majority of the *artificial cake*.
Edits: 08/30/14 08/30/14 08/31/14 08/31/14
do you believe that any acoustical performance is inverted in polarity?My answer is absolutely not. If it sounds different, it is supposed to sound that way: i.e. French horn, Tabla. etc. That is reality.
If your transducers have drivers in inverted polarity. their performance can hardly reflect that reality, can it?
As far as an idealist mental construct, my opinions are based on what I heard as a music major and performing in ensembles. Oh yeah, I enjoy an occasional electric concert, but my ideal is live unamplified music. I used to enjoy attending student recitals at our local university. Live unamplified and often with mistakes, but still there was a purity to the sound so very few speakers even approach. Surprisingly many of such recitals were not very loud in volume as many "audiophiles" seem to need.
Yeah, music is subjective but I would not pay large sums of money for obviously flawed designs when I am more interested in the performance of the players rather than a euphonic presentation to my taste. That would exclude too much music and not honor the performers, in my opinion.
Also making music subject to one's individual taste may work for some music but certainly not for others.
You ask for examples of time and phase aligned speakers: Just on my listening experience and not on any review. Tonal range and frequency response will vary widely as to be expected
Quad 57's
All Vandersteens
Spica TC-50, TC 60
Martin Logan full range electrostatics, CLS IIRC. (Hybrids have woofers inverted in polarity)
Sound Labs full range electrostatics.
Single driver systems (in fact i think that think their coherency is a large part of their appeal for many, at least in the mids)
Ryan SpeakersI certainly have not heard every speaker out there, but I have attended CES for several decades and heard many if not most of the "buzz word" systems.
Of course YMMV and FWIW
You echo Aktinson in making frequency response one of your primary goals. Certainly Quad 57s have a limited dispersion but I lived with them, happily, for many years... For midrange accuracy they were extremely hard to surpass.
Edits: 08/30/14
Acoustical performances are never inverted in polarity as far as I know, but why bother to ask such a question? It's as if you are convinced that loudspeakers can move air exactly like acoustic instruments or acoustical ensembles do. Loudspeakers, not even the ones that you say you prefer, do not move air exactly like real music does and IMO this is one of the the main reasons why real music sounds so different than reproduced music. Even if speakers could displace air in a lifelike manner, a pair of speakers (or even severals pairs) would not necessarily sound exactly like real music does. You claim to be able to hear subtle differences and/or improvements in speakers with coherent drivers, but are you absolutely sure that what you are hearing is not being caused by some other factor within the design?I would suggest that the loudspeakers you've listed and/or listened to sound realistic (to you) primarily because of decent amplitude response and because of the way that their summed on/off axis dispersions load the room that you hear or heard them in, and less so because of how the drivers were acting. But, I can't be certain about that. Maybe you really do have the kind of special ears that relatively few others seem to have.
It is important that we choose the type of system that sounds best to our ears - regardless of what you or I or someone else says is best or most proper. Not everyone notices the difference between inverted drive an non-inverted drive, so transient response can't matter that much. Music contains a variety of aspects, not everyone's ears alert to the same aspects that ours do. Why bother to criticize the gear that someone else is attracted to by way of their own personal instincts? If you say that you like or need all drivers to beat in unison always, then I guess that's fine with me.
Edits: 08/30/14 08/30/14 08/30/14 08/30/14 08/30/14 08/30/14 08/30/14 08/30/14 08/31/14 08/31/14 08/31/14 08/31/14 08/31/14
1. if you don't mind a "distorted" version of reality which does not reflect what occurs in real life, so be it. That is fine by me. AS I have already stated music is very subjective.
2. If you do wish to hear music as the artist played it and meant to be, the polsirty, the timing of th drivers need to be consistent with real life, at least for acoustical performances.
Even if amplified performances may be out of polarity but, if the artist wanted that effect, sgouldn't your transducers reflect that?
I listed Quad 57's, the original Quads. By all account limited in frequency response and severely limited in dispersion. The common aphorism is that you have to loct your head in place to get any sense of imaging. Funny after so many decades it is still sought after.
Any audiophile needs to confront his personal reality,. You have already stated that frequency response and dispersion are your primary goals. That's the first step and in stating it , you are a brave man, because many would disagree, as obviously I am. The timing information for me is crucial because it places fine musical nuance in proper relationship to individual members i the performing ensemble. It places the harmonic structure of any held notes in proper balance. It gives better spatial cues for live and even studio performances where the ambient details are more exposed.
Those things may not be important to you, but they are for me. To have the vast majority of designs ignore my wants and desires and to discount the reality is bothersome, to say the least. However, at least they can cater to your taste.
I'd say that you are the brave one.I know you're aware that your opinions on this subject are shared by a minority of experienced listeners. The majority value the *major aspects* of sonic reproduction more highly than you do. So, I won't bother to reiterate the facts and statistics that you have chosen to disagree with. You seem to thrive on dissent and/or the cultivation of conspiracy theories, so please continue to enjoy your spot at the back of the room.
Edits: 08/31/14 08/31/14
Wide response and dispersion. Reminds me of a pair of Bose 901s i once owned in the 70's.
Cheap shot, Stu...
But, it's fun and easy to pick on old Amar isn't it?. How dare he dislike listening to speakers with his head in a vise? Bose got carried away with reflected sound. Shahinian did much better.
I don't know why this topic creates so much consternation and dissent.Correct polarity will reproduce the acoustic wavefront in the same way in which it was originally produced.
Whether or not it is perceiveable is another matter.
IF a researcher could eliminate ALL other variables and isolate ONLY the polarity, then they could conduct a meaningful test. In fact, this topic has been researched quite thoroughly. Go to the Acoustical Society of America website and do a search on the topic.
As I've written before, musical instrument sound radiation/dispersion patterns vary both with frequency and the type of instrument. This is well-known. We place microphones in certain positions for a reason. What we get is the sound at that position. However, whatever the position of the microphone, that waveform should be reproduced correctly at the end of the recording/reproducing chain. This is basic and obvious.
In that regard, we're not talking so much about whether a French horn, bassoon, snare drum, etc. produces a positive (compression) or negative (rarifaction) initial wavefront, as we are about getting it right at the loudpeaker reproduction end.
Regardless, current recording, sound reproduction and loudspeaker technology prevents us from realistically reproducing the sound of a musical instrument.
Edits: 09/03/14 09/03/14
But some who do not hear it claim that no one else can. Projection i believe is the term cest la vie.
... is the simple fact that *some* who claim to hear "this issue" cannot understand why the issue is not taken seriously by those don't claim to hear it. LOL... you seem to be the only one here who would "project" your beliefs onto those who don't hear things as you do.No one participating in or referenced in this thread (not Toole, not Atkinson, and certainly not me) who has NOT consistently heard what you hear has ever claimed that "no one else" can hear it just because they can't, AFAIK. Everyone I know believes that it's audibility is limited to those in the MINORITY. Most of us acknowledge that "coherence" is a worthy goal so long as the pursuit of such does not compromise excellent overall performance. In this case, the "minority" includes YOU...
Get over it, because "serious listeners" do not necessarily hear things the same way. The majority of listeners ("serious" or otherwise) seem to have different listening preferences than you do. That's what the evidence shows, and that's why you'll find so many different types of gear preferences - here, there, and everywhere.
So remember: Wishful thinking, exaggerated depictions, and snarky responses cannot replace facts. The majority of scientific and/or anecdotal evidence that I'm aware of seems to be saying something different than what you are saying.
Edits: 09/04/14
Genungo, it's always important to maintain a distinction between objective and subjective.
Whether or not someone can hear some kind of change isn't the issue. Some people hear changes that other people don't. That's not new. Also, some people prefer a sound quality which is different from the originally recorded sound. That is subjective - it's personal 'taste'.
In this discussion, the fact is that one polarity is correct and the other is not. Either the waveform is the same as when it was received by the microphone, or, it's upside down. The whole discussion about whether or not a piano or a snare drum or a French horn or a marimba or an orchestra or whatever has a leading compression or rarifaction is the wrong way to look at the question. The question is, does the loudspeaker produce a compression when the microphone received a compression?
A SECONDARY question can be whether or not a particular individual can hear the difference, but that should not deter us from pursuing good science and doing our best to "get it right".
:)
Do you agree with John Atkinson and others who claim that "doing our best to get IT right" ("focusing on time domain behavior") will sometimes cause us to get other, more important aspects (amplitude response, dispersion characteristics) of speaker performance wrong?And, please understand that I have nothing against "perfect polarity", nor am I trying to deny that a sonic wave naturally travels outward and away from it's source. "Nature" is not the issue here...
But, if we sometimes have to sacrifice the smaller thing for the greater thing in loudspeaker design - if we must sacrifice something - shouldn't it be the thing that the minority of listeners will miss rather then the thing which the majority of listeners will miss?
Do your speakers exhibit perfect "time domain behavior"? If not, please explain why you think that the designers chose to leave that aspect of performance *undone*, or even *underdone*.
I hope that you are seeing the point I'm trying to make here.
Edits: 09/04/14 09/04/14 09/04/14 09/04/14
Yes, and why fuss over a thing if it is not perceivable... TO YOU?One of the first things we need to do as audiophiles, IMO is to listen. Listen, in order to find out what it is that matters to YOU, to your ears. Don't take anyone else's word, don't worry about that which is theoretically "correct". What sounds best and most realistic to you?
*Listen*, and *Do*...
If doing whatever it takes to satisfy our own ears is not one of the primary goals of this hobby, then why would any of us want to have anything to do with it?
Edits: 09/03/14 09/03/14
Firstly, thanks for quietly correcting my misspelling of "perceivable".
However, with regard to sound, you're on the wrong track. Whether or not the polarity of a reproduced sound is audible to a particular individual isn't the question.
As I wrote, this issue has been studied in-depth.
Reproducing an acoustic waveform correctly, with regard to polarity, is the more desirable approach. This is clear.
Subjective preference by a particular individual is an entirely different matter.
I trust that my ears will tell me which track to follow. I'm going to continue listening, it's the only way.I agree that "reproducing an acoustic waveform correctly, with regard to polarity,..." would SEEM to be the desirable approach. It all makes such perfect sense. The problem is that the limitations of loudspeaker design prevent the perfectly sensible thing from being *translated* into a perfect design statement.
It's not that our theories are wrong, the problem is that reality prevents us from implementing our theories. We all know about the many different things that a loudspeaker should or must to do in order to sound realistic. Can we unanimously agree that there is even one loudspeaker design that does everything right? One that sounds perfectly realistic to everyone? No, we cannot. We DO know something about which types of loudspeakers most listeners seem to prefer, however, and what is *known* seems to match what my own personal listening experience has revealed to ME so far...
Regarding "perfect polarity" and it's relation to *practical implementation*, it might be wise to remember what has already been said on the subjects:
"The advocates of accurate waveform reproduction... are in a particularly awkward situation. IN SPITE OF THE CONSIDERABLE ENGINEERING APPEAL OF THIS CONCEPT, practical tests have yielded little evidence of listener sensitivity to this factor... the effects of phase are clearly subordinate to amplitude response." - Floyd Toole, 1986
"... all studies have shown that there is a HIERARCHY OF PERFORMANCE... Flatness and smoothness of amplitude response and a well-controlled and even radiation pattern are primary... a speaker that gets those wrong in favor of being able to reproduce transient waveforms correctly will not produce sound quality that listeners prefer." - John Atkinson, 2014
"As you can see from the measurements... it's performance graphically illustrated THE RESPONSE AND DISPERSION PROBLEMS YOU CAN GET BY FOCUSING ON THE TIME DOMAIN BEHAVIOR." - John Atkinson, 2014 (referring to his review of a well known time/phase "correct" speaker design)
Edits: 09/03/14 09/03/14 09/03/14 09/03/14
When quoting who are these test subjects? Some one picked off the street? Musicians? IIRC O'Toole used toronto students not necessarily serious listeners.
As to the practicality:well with a super computer in a lap top these days, with the advances in materials like carbon fiber, kevlar, nomex, etc not to mention in the rare earth magnets they can't design a phase coherent transducer? I think you better re examine your suppositions
I think that I have examined and re-examined my "suppositions". In addition, I've been using my ears. The question is, have you been doing these things? I have my doubts that you have been.
Despite all of the "advances" you list above and despite your optimistic attitude, I notice that you have not named one single "phase coherent transducer" produced by these technological "advances" that has successfully combines every desirable sonic characteristic in proper balance - AND IS THOUGHT OF AS SUCH BY A MAJORITY OF LISTENERS, be they "serious listeners" (burp!) or otherwise. So, do you have any brand names or facts to present, or is this just more colorful theorizing and wishful thinking from Unclestu?As if simply creating a "phase coherent transducer" was a desirable goal...
Creating a time/phase coherent transducer that does not compromise more highly regarded aspects of speaker performance might be a desirable and worthy goal - for those who claim to be able to hear the effects of "incoherence", at least.
Also, show me one study proving or even implying that your so-called "serious listeners" can hear any better than young, healthy college students. You can't? I didn't think so...
More smoke and mirrors from Unclestu, I guess.
Edits: 09/03/14 09/03/14 09/03/14 09/04/14 09/04/14 09/04/14
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: