|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
184.167.92.120
Some years back, there was a guy who referred to himself as the "perfect polarity pundit" (?). He claimed that he was developing a device that could detect (and automatically correct for?) polarity problems in digital recordings.
What ever happened with him and that? I don't see how such a device could possibly work as claimed, but was there ever any evidence shown that his attempt was actually built and/or put into production?
Follow Ups:
would one be able to hear the difference between compression and rarefaction?
I'm not SUPER sensitive to absolute polarity, but percussion is where I notice it.
... that shoots sound UP?
Bells of a French horn face backwards when playing. In addition, the player usually stuffs his hand into the mouth of the bell, all of which accounts for the unique sound of a French horn. Yes polarity when auditioning a French horn can be difficult.
Q: Why does the hornist (I be one) stuff his hand into the bell?
A: To create a "dark" tonality, and for intonation (stuffed in hard to sharp a note, loosely to flat it).
Werd.
http://mindseyemusic.blogspot.com/
Q: How you make a trombone sound like a French horn?
A: Put your hand in the bell and miss half the notes.Fact: A trombonist can play a chromatic scale - pretty closely.
:)
Edits: 09/01/14
The direction of the blast depends on the type of "French Horn" used and/or the individual's technique. But no matter, French horns (and instruments like it) are pretty difficult to record.French "Parforce" horn here...
Edits: 08/29/14
"The direction of the blast..."What does that have to do with polarity?
If the first half of the first wave form emitted from the horn is positive then it pressurizes the room and will be seen by the microphone (or our ears) as a positive going half wave, no matter which direction the horn pointing.
P.S. I don't have a dog in this race. I'm just trying to keep it real.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Edits: 08/30/14 08/30/14
Sorry, I should have made myself more clear. Zipcord and David S. made me think of the difficulties involved in recording things like drumkits, which started me thinking about the difficulties involved in recording instruments like the French Horn using the "purist, minimally miked, audiophile" recording techniques that might make it easiest to detect polarity issues. Pierre Sprey of Mapleshade Records talks about the difficulties involved in recording the French Horn and piano in his CD entitled, "The Majesty of the Horn". Instruments like that one can be real bears to record because of the dispersion characteristics or the complex sum of their reflections, or so it is said.
Edits: 08/30/14 08/30/14 08/30/14 08/31/14
.
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
I'll try to control my meanderings next time...
Standard horns face back as any examination of any major orchestra will reveal.
The horn in the photo is definitely not a standard instrument
... 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
I did not agree with George Louis' assessment that most CDs were produced with inverted absolute polarity.
But then again, I often blamed "inverted polarity" on certain recordings for what turned out to be shortcomings in my audio systems. On a good system, inverted polarity is not the major sonic flaw that I once thought it was.
Wouldn't it depend on how your system is set in its polarity?
"Wouldn't it depend on how your system is set in its polarity?"
The bottom line: Is the acoustic "direction" from the performers the same as that from the speakers in the end-user's system? (For example, is the air is pushed out from a drum strike presented as the air pushed out from the end-user's speakers? If the speakers produce the signal by pulling back air, then the presentation is inverted.) The recording process and end user's system have inverted the signal a total of x number of times. As long as "x" is an even number, the listener will be served the signal in its original non-inverted state. But if "x" is an odd number, then the listener will be served the signal inverted relative to the original state.
If you break down the whole process to the recording process (call it x1) and user's system (call it x2), ideally, x1 and x2 are both even numbers. A non-inverted recording and a non-inverting system. But if that non-inverting system plays an inverted recording (which do exist), the end user will have to temporarily change x2 to an odd number (usually by reversing the +/- polarity of the wires at the amp or speakers) in order to take in the recorded performers with correct non-inverting polarity.
I find as I have improved my set-up it is EASIER to know when the polarity is wrong.
Takes about 15 seconds, wish I could detect quicker.
Biggest change these days is in the width - though I wonder if it is not vocals that give me the initial clue.
Some records are less tolerant of incorrect polarity that others. There are more than a few that when played my initial thinking is "this is not a very good recording" only to change the polarity and find it enjoyable.
Of course, the key to enjoying the change is having an easy way to switch. My thanks to John Broskie for his easy to implement polarity switch.
After all these years, I've become so used to the flaw, it doesn't bother me like it once did. I guess I developed a tolerance for inverted audio playback.
15 seconds is a very commendable time. In fact compared to most 15 seconds is a eon faster.
As for vocals. remember in English, at least we have basically five vowels and a lot more consonant sounds, some of which have very small audio differences. I always point out the difference between saying P and saying B. The difference is only the slightly more explosive attack on the P but can make a huge difference in meaning. An out of polarity signal will make the P sound like a B.
On a system that I can notice it, I can pick up inverted polarity after several minutes, but no less.... (In contrast to Auto-Tune, which I can notice in as little as three seconds.) And even there, I'd need to confirm it by changing the polarity, then replaying the track.
Will differ of course, but for me fine detail and musical nuances are hopelessly smeared when played back out of absolute polarity. Even Atkinson says only 20 models from 5 manufacturers meet close to ideal phase alignment.
of course YMMV.
I was lucky, i was weened on Spicas , Quad 57's...,
Maybe the devise shorted out and he got vaporized.............. poof !
May he Rest in Peace... and in Perfect Polarity.
Edits: 08/30/14 08/30/14
Has a website absolutepolarity.com. Quoted often, most recently in Paul McGowen's blog. Most listeners can. not hear polarity and transducer designs compound the issue. A quick scan of Stereophile's test measurements show most speakers have drivers in mixed polarities. Either listeners can't hear it or designers can't. Either way the public is being screwed IMHO.
Although I no longer think absolute polarity is the big deal that I once thought, I still believe that all drivers of a loudspeaker should have the same polarity relative to each other. In other words, a positive signal should move all drivers of a speaker in the same direction.
Don't forget the crossover.
All filters affect the phase, a low pass has an output whose phase lags behind the original signal while a high pass advances it.
The shift is 45deg per pole in either direction. Consequently a 12dB/oct (two pole) 2 way crossover requires either the tweeter or the woofer to be inverted so that bass and treble are in phase with each other because the low pass retards phase by 90deg while the high pass advances it by 90deg.
90 + 90 = 180 hence one of the drivers has got to be inverted to maintain correct polarity throughout the speakers pass band.
Any suck out observed means that the output of woofer and tweeter are NOT moving in the same direction.
The physics is quite complex.... Ideally, when testing drivers/crossovers with square waves, the rise time of the LF driver should acoustically cancel out the "droop" in the HF driver..... The end result is a near-perfect square wave. The hard part is getting both the square wave response and the frequency response correct.
The speed of the woofers rise time is determined by the crossover point.
A fast rise time is an indication of high frequency content. To reproduce a perfect square wave (impossible in reality) you would need a system with infinite bandwidth.
ideally yes, but its not always possible to do that and not have suckouts at or near the xover points. some pretty respectable brands invert polarity of the tweeter or other driver to avoid them.
...regards...tr
You've been brainwashed. inverted drivers cancel at their overlap, snd poor designers use that to simulate a steeper slope. sine wave sweeps are more even.
That being said music is not only sine waves. If a cheap ass speaker like a Spica can achieve time and phase alignment, what does it say about designers with mega buck product all claiming the latest computer programming using custom drivers,etc., etc.
What does it say about customers who buy them? Tens of thousands of dollars and not a true reflection of reality which is always in the correct polarity (at least if acoustic)
i haven't been brainwashed (i still have a dirty mind). i was just stating the fact that some manufacturers release speakers with this condition, inverted driver polarity, and the usual reason for it.
i haven't stated that its the proper way nor that the speakers are valid in this configuration. they usually exhibit the flawed impulse response curve shown in sterephile mag.
my dynaco a25s had this approach if i am correct, and they sounded very good but never imaged properly.
...regards...tr
I didn't mean my post to seem like it was aimed at you. I was commenting in general and for that gaff I do apologize.
The fact remains true though: We all have been fooled into accepting the designers' "explanations" for the need to invert drivers in a multiple driver system. This lie has been perpetrated so often, even reviewers accept it as gospel but the fact remains is our systems are supposed to reflect reality, nothing is out of absolute polarity in real life.
I simply do not understand why so many insist on this twisted version of reality and yet spend often tens of thousands of dollars for obviously flawed product. Designers are at fault , but then so is the general listening public.
Speakers which are correctly polarized: Single Full range electrostatics, Vandersteens, Ryan Speakers ( a simple rectangular cabinet giving lie to those who believe only staggered drivers can achieve time coherency).
As one noted speaker designer has stated on numerous occasions, if perfect frequency response and polarity and time alignment were the goals of all manufacturers, shouldn't there be convergence in sound after a certain price point? The fact that even at $100K there isn't, shows that is not the goal of most if not all designers.
not needed but here in the most recent Stereophile the kef r700 is reviewed. and here it is in print:
"In the time domain, the R700's step response on the tweeter axis (fig.7) reveals that the tweeter and woofers are connected in positive acoustic polarity, the midrange in inverted polarity. Some Internet know-alls have opined that this mixture of polarities is a problem. It isn't. What actually matters is that the decay of each drive-unit's step smoothly blends with the start of the step of the unit next lower in frequency. In this case, this results in the superb frequency-domain integration of the R700's outputs seen in fig.4. The cumulative spectral-decay plot on the tweeter axis (fig.8) also justifies the adjective superb, as in superbly clean."
having not heard this speaker, i can't speak to its sound as i might hear it. the shape of the impulse response curve in fig.7 doesn't conform to the shape that richard vandersteen prefers. so many of the exotic speakers reviewed in Stereophile exhibit the shape similar to the one shown in this review. some of them i have actually heard and can't fault their sound. usually a direct comparison is not available to me.
i do so love phased array type systems such as the dahlquist dq10, the vandy speakers, the spica tc 50s, and the like. the search for the holy grail isn't likely to be over soon..
...regards...tr
Over on the speaker asylum I argued with Atkinson about this very similar statement he made about the Wilsons under discussion.
Atkinson accepted the fact that an inverted midrange was common and did not reflect reality. His defense was that "studies" show that the majority of listeners deem frequency response more important than any other attribute including time and phase alignment.
Again to use Stereophile, if you look up their speaker test measurement explanation, Atkinson in discussing the step impulse test statees that the ideal is a sharp rise followed by a slow ramping down, looking sort of like a right triangle. Atkinson states that in all his years only 10 models from 5 manufacturers ever met anything close to that ideal.
The 5 manufacturers were; Vandersteen, Spica, Quad, Thiel and Dunlavy.
Thus time and phase alignment can be done and with reasonable prices too. The fact that it isn't merey reflects the large amount of advertising and IMHO the fact that reviewers are not either cognizant of the issue or maybe they simply can't hear it.
After many years of CES I am [retty sure they can't hear it, or maybe more accurately they can her something but con't identify the issue. Just my observations after standing behind many well known reviewers while listening to theri tst discs.....
OF cours YMMV and FWIW
Anything's possible, I guess...Most likely, these reviewers are *not* doing what most other listeners would not be doing. They are not wondering about things that are *not heard*. If they can't hear it then why should it matter... to them, you, or anyone else?
How do you know that you aren't the one with hearing problems? Could it possibly be that your ears are picking up on minor distortion artifacts that everyone else's ears happily ignore?
Edits: 08/31/14 08/31/14 08/31/14
My ears are bad.... I guess George Louis',Clark Johnsen's, Paul McGowen of PS Audio are equally bad since they can hear polarity, too.
Incidentally try comparing the sound of your Grados to your AKGs. The AKGs are supposed to be inverted in polarity. Curiously. the original Grado Signatures had a polarity switch built into their top line phones so someone there obviously could hear it.
If you don't hear it,fine. Just cause you do not hear it does not mean everyone else is the same.
... is the polarity that sounds best to the individual. Who are you (or Clark, or anyone else in your distinguished company...) to say what is most "realistic" sounding to another's ears? Hifi is artifice. All YOU really *know* is what sounds most realistic to YOU (and a small minority of others like you).So, Joe Grado - out of the kindness of his heart - put a polarity switch on his headphones. Is it possible that Joe might have done this so that everyone could decide for themselves which way sounded "correct"? Did John Grado eliminate the polarity switch only because he felt that "Simpler is Better"? Or, did John also suspect that searching for the "correct" polarity in many recordings was tantamount to heading the proverbial wild goose chase?
You cannot speak for everyone, you cannot assume that those who differ with you are somehow lost. The thought of anyone refusing to genuflect before your Holy Grail as they pass by seems to disturb the heck out of you but please, try to get over it. People have different opinions about what sounds most realistic. So what?
YOU are in the minority, remember? So, I'd say that a lot of people hear things a little bit differently than you do...
Edits: 08/31/14 08/31/14 08/31/14 08/31/14
And pray tell why do the vast majority of listeners seem to unanimously agree that audio playback can NOT approach the real life experience?Think about it. Perhaps a closer approximation of reality is not what you want, but i believe you are the one projecting your opinion on others.
Just because McDonalds sells more hamburgers than anyone else doesn't make them the best in either taste (highly subjective) or nutritious. They simply cater to the lower common denominator.
It is quite obvious that you have very different goals from your audio system. I define a realistic system as being much more than FR: you don't. That's fine by me.
And i'll leave it at that.
Edits: 09/03/14
I think that, most likely, there are a number of reasons (both explained and unexplained) why live music sounds different than reproduced music. But, it almost sounds as if you think there might be but ONE major reason for the differences: "If only all the drivers moved forward at once instead of backwards and forward...", etc... Whatever you say, Stu.I'm trying to let my ears define what realism is. I would suggest that others, including you, try to do the same thing. If you think that "perfect polarity" is the Holy Grail then more power to you. If someone does not hear the things that Unclestu *claims* to hear, more power to them.
OTOH if we review Unclestu's numerous posts on the subject at hand, it becomes laughingly obvious that you are the guy with the axe to grind here, going so far as to dismantle a pair of *incoherent* KEF LS50 speakers in the process. Hey, the evidence speaks for itself...
Anyone who dares to question Uncle's authority (John Atkinson, for example) is a villain, of course. The self appointed preacher of perfect polarity thinks that he's eating steak while everyone who disagrees with him is eating at McDonalds? Wow, now THAT is funny!
Get over yourself.
Edits: 09/01/14 09/01/14 09/01/14 09/01/14 09/01/14 09/01/14
"ideally yes, but its not always possible to do that and not have suckouts at or near the xover points. some pretty respectable brands invert polarity of the tweeter or other driver to avoid them."
Quite true.... But the few times I've "tweaked" such speakers, even with the FR aberrations, I've preferred the drivers all with the same polarity.
In order for the speakers to do well with both FR and the drivers all in phase, the drivers also have to be time-aligned.... Such designs require a lot more work, including acoustic evaluation (impulse and/or square wave response) to determine correct alignment, and then designing the cabinet with stepped or sloped baffle to accommodate the aligned drivers.
...that guy thought of classic JBL and Tannoy speakers.
The ones whose cones move inward when faced with a positive voltage.
Both Tannoy and JBL claimed at the time that their drivers were designed that way to preserve absolute polarity.
I once confirmed the JBL drivers move inward with a positive electrical potential. However, don't think there was a standard for that.
with in polarity voltage.
...regards...tr
I don't think signal polarity was actually a specification in recording or mastering.
No but IIRC IEC defined it as such.
Older JBL's including the L series were wired inverted. As part of the HK empire, newer JBLS are supposedly wired correctly. IIRC James B Lansing thought the speaker should replicate the motion of the air hitting the tympanic membrane i.e. moving inwards, for some odd reason.
AKG headphones also a part of the Harman empire is still built polarity inverted. According to their literature: that is part and parcel of the AKG "sound"
I believe that you are looking for Audio Geroge. he is still around. Very cool guy IMO.
More than you ever wanted to know ...
If you don't become the ocean, you'll be seasick every day.
—Leonard Cohen
With all the "enhancements", processing, sample-rate conversion (relative to the original A/D), and compression in recent recordings, I believe that absolute polarity is a relatively minor problem..... I think hardly anyone would be able to pass an ABX test for polarity inversion, on a phase-correct system, with most of these recordings.
Edits: 08/28/14
a polarity switch in your system, certain properly recorded discs (black or silver) will sound better one way or the other. remotely controlled, it is sometimes striking.
...regards...tr
My friend has a polarity switch, and I can easily hear the difference on many classical music recordings--when it makes a difference, I notice more "air" around the instruments and overall better imaging. I'm hardly a golden-ears type, but switching polarity isn't hard to hear.
Not really hard to hear, but when speaker system have drivers in mixed polaritiesflilping switch can help some portions of the FR and worsen others. This leads many listeners to simply give up...
Edits: 09/01/14
"a polarity switch in your system, certain properly recorded discs (black or silver) will sound better one way or the other. remotely controlled, it is sometimes striking."
Totally agree.... But there are fewer and fewer recordings being put out that would yield such result. (I think roughly half the recordings put out in recent time have "mixed" absolute polarity. One performer is recorded inverted relative to another.)
The only time I get hung up on polarity nowadays is with acoustic recordings. Jazz or classical. With pop and rock recordings, I only worry about the vocalists or drums.
Yeah...
George may be a decent fellow but he is fanatical when you get him started on this subject. I don't doubt he may be "polarity sensitive". But he approaches the subject as if everyone either does or should share his level of concern.
I don't believe that's true. I have heard some examples of in and out of phase polarity (if that is the proper terminology). But nothing close to the extent he reports.
"You can’t know what the “best” is unless you have heard everything, and keep in mind that given individual tastes, there really isn’t any such thing." HP
and it seems that they both are quite wordy on the subject.
...regards...tr
The difference I've found is that Clark Johnsen pretty much knows what he's talking about.
So, Dave - what's your take on his belief that you have to get mains polarity right first (in terms of getting the correct ends of the primary winding connected to mains active / mains neutral), as a pre-requisite for picking out absolute polarity?
Makes sense to me. :-))
Andy
are you pulling my leg or not?
I'm really too technically illiterate to know.
What I do know is that I'm cursed with being able to tell, in many or most cases, whether a recording is in absolute or inverted polarity -- or just as likely in mixed polarity -- when listening to my Gallo speakers, which (in the words of a Gallo VP) are "extremely sensitive to polarity." Before getting the Gallo Reference 3 speakers in 2004, I couldn't tell at all.
Some people think it's a lot of BS but I'm happy to believe that there is some good thinking here (about mains polarity and the mains transformer primary winding). And as all my equipment nowadays is DIY, I can make sure I get this right! :-))
Regards,
Andy
That's the reason for polarized power plugs these days.
The polarized AC plug has nothing to do with absolute phase or anything even closely related to sonics. It is done to prevent the chassis of the equipment from being connected to the hot side of the AC line. The neutral side of the AC supply is connected to ground at the utility's transformer that supplies your house with AC. A lot of mfr's in the 60s and later, connected the neutral side of the AC cord to the metal chassis to provide grounding (especially on cords that were only 2 prong). If you reverse the plug, the chassis will be "hot", which by itself might not pose a problem, but if you come in contact with the chassis and ground, surprise!
and btw, we in Oz have always had 'polarised' mains plugs/sockets (and an earth).
Yes, the electrician might've wired the outlet correctly and, yes, the active wire connects to the fuse inside the case ... but the mfr might have connected the power transformer primary "the wrong way round"!
Of course, those who suffer from a surfeit of logic say " but it's AC so it can't possibly matter "! :-))
Regards,
Andy
That's a different concern.
Wiring the primary of the power transformer "wrong" won't change the polarity of the sound coming out of the speakers.
On the other hand keeping the ground currents low between components is a good thing.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
But getting the primary winding 'aligned' right seems to assist in picking up absolute phase (according to Clark Johnsen who "wrote the book", anyway).
Regards,
Andy
And I agree.
If proper polarity is going to be heard, having everything else right would help.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
It is my understanding and experience that the simpler the crossover (and best of all, no crsossover at all), the easer it is to detect changes in polarity. That's assuming the speakers are polarity-coherent in the first place.
Newer elecrttical appliances have to be correctly polarized. IIRC it is a EU convention and now universally applicable. Of course older components may not be correctly oriented. On some older units like my original Dynakits, wrong orientation adds a bit of distortion for some reason. That would make seeking polarity harder.
nt
"You can’t know what the “best” is unless you have heard everything, and keep in mind that given individual tastes, there really isn’t any such thing." HP
gonna say that but restraint kept me from it.
...regards...tr
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: