|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
208.131.186.64
Since this issue was not specifically addressed in another related thread, I thought it'd be interesting to raise it here.
The issue is; whether or not most equipment (especially speakers) are up to the task of closely replicating the typical sound of real instruments.
It could be argued that the speaker-types favored by Hi-Efficiency inmates, here, come much closer to this goal than the vast majority of the much more popular type(s). And that this is not just because of their dynamism, but also because of their more 'hefty' midrange tone (similar to that of real instruments). Both of which are features most other types of speakers lack - hence the superior realism of H-E speaker-types (especially those with the midrange tonal 'weight' afforded by the cone-surface area of large mid-woofers, in large enclosures).
Arguably the most popular speaker-type (sub-woofed small-coned mini-monitors, crossed-over below 200hz) are acknowledged to be somewhat compromised in dynamism. Could their lack of lower midrange tone/heft be, also, a factor in their lesser realism compared to speaker-systems with large mid-woofers as cited above?
I'm inclined to believe so, but I'm also very interested in what the experts here have to say on this issue.
Thanks!
Follow Ups:
The question in my mind is, WHY does area matter? Why do small cones often (usually?) seem to lack "heft"?I see three candidate reasons:
1) baffle step causes bass loss. The turnover frequency goes up into the midrange when the box gets narrow. Big cones are usually in big (wide) boxes. Problem is, imaging improves, sometimes dramatically, when the box is narrow.
2) You can restore heft with BSC equalization, but that does not affect the directivity shift so it's not the same thing. A narrow box becomes omnidirectional in the lower midrange, exposing room resonances and damaging the impression of the recording venue - perceived as losing heft/impact/naturalness.
3) excursion limitations cause small drivers to get muddy unless they are crossed over high and steeply. Bigger drivers crossed at the same frequency will have less excursion. At one time, Doppler distortion was blamed; I don't hear that argument so much these days. My own experience leads me to guess that audible excursion-limited sonic quality begins at a tiny fraction of the Thiele-Small-specified xmax.
Edits: 04/24/12
"My own experience leads me to guess that audible excursion-limited sonic quality begins at a tiny fraction of the Thiele-Small-specified xmax."
BET that Paul. Agreed.
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
Interesting!
Hi Paul,I agree, your baffle-step theory may be a factor - excursion-limits too. And here's a part of my own theory - taken from something I wrote elsewhere:
[I believe the root of the problem lies in driver-size or, more specifically, cone-surface area. Despite what steady-state measurements may say, the small cones of modern speakers cannot properly energize the air with the power, authentic authority, and subsequent realism, of the larger drivers that better them in performance at the lower-midrange.
A speaker's cone is actually the business-end of a piston which pushes air. The larger the piston; the more air is moved efficiently. A small piston/cone does efficiently move air at higher frequencies. But then, the lower the frequency; the less efficient the small piston/cone becomes. I believe this explains the small driver's competence at middle-midrange, and also its ineptitude at lower-mids (and at bass, of course). The overwhelming evidence indicates that small drivers are incapable of energizing the volumes of air necessary to accurately replicate the robust tones of actual instruments operating in the lower-midrange. In their vain efforts to do so, they actually deliver more of the middle-mids and less of the lower-mids, or this is what reaches our ears - and this accounts for their anemic balance, compared to live music - despite what the measurements say.
To prove this 'surface-area' theory, double-stack two pairs of mini-monitors, and see if the double-stacked pair doesn't reproduce music with slightly more realistic 'body', apparent detail, and 'substance', in the lower-mids, than the identical single-pair, as one magazine's writer recently discovered. (Refer to The Audio Critique).
This suggests that the double-stacked pairs of cones are more efficient in moving the increased volumes of air necessary at lower-midrange frequencies. This also suggest that the single-pair does, indeed, supply the lower mids tones, as the measurements would verify. But not enough for us to even hear those low-mids properly. For it to be able to energize enough air for the resulting sound to be representative of the actual tones of real instruments (to the human ear in the real world) then the cone surface-area MUST be increased, whether thru multiples of small drivers, or by one large-coned driver, per channel.
It's as simple as that. For true realism, small drivers, are entirely inadequate, unless utilized in multiples (as per Whisper's Legacy and Helix models, for example). Yet, this is what dominates our audio-world today. And this anemic balance, of the popular but inadequate sub-woofed mini-monitor, is what mainstream audio magazines have long been passing-off as the 'correct balance', in collusion with their 'favorite' manufacturers, for their own self-serving purposes.]
I could be wrong, of course - these are only my opinions. (The full text is linked below).
Cheers.
Edits: 04/22/12
The notion of spectral balance is a good one. The research goes back a long way - Snow I think had the best papers, from the twenties maybe? Anyhow, his experiments showed loss of perceived quality as the spectrum was limited at the high and low end. Later sources - which I have not been able to trace - advocated an equal loss at each end to preserve balance I can't say I've seen actual data to support this but it makes sense to me and agrees with my experience. Treble is much cheaper than bass - and mass-market speakers sound screechy to me!
Sorry for the sidetrack - it should really be another thread but I'm lazy :^)
Yeah! Did a little piece specifically on that subject miself, entitled; "The Trouble With Treble in Audio - Bass Too". I've seen a reference to a book by Badeimaff and Davis, in which this principle was cited as the Law of 500,000. Some feel Jean Hiraga was the originator - I'm sure he's not - but he refers to it as the Law of 400,000. Perhaps if more designers observed this law we'd have less of those un-naturally bright speakers. Perhaps!
Edits: 04/24/12
(For those unfamiliar, the number is the product of LF and HF frequencies)
I have seen everything from 400,000 to 1,000,000. My reading of Snow's data correlates best with 630,000 - for example, 50Hz to 12.5kHz. Minimonitor bass to 100Hz would match 6300Hz treble - a good range for a single 6" to 8" driver without a whizzer, and acceptable for THX side channels. Or how about 250-2500 - the traditional telephone (vocal) range, pretty close, and a good starting point for a definition of midrange.
Going back to the heft of the midrange issue, by this approach the midrange begins well below 500Hz ...
lol. Good post, Jopster!
Let's review: Somebody came up with a number, however obtuse and silly it may be. Whether it's 100 x 10,000, or whatever, for some reason this nonsense seems to propagate throughout the newbie world.
Can we please move past this idiocy? This isn't 1960 any more!
It doesn't need any Law of 500,000 or 400,000 to properly designed a speaker. All it takes is a pair of good/trained ears.
Well said, Cids!
"To prove this 'surface-area' theory, double-stack two pairs of mini-monitors, and see if the double-stacked pair doesn't reproduce music with slightly more realistic 'body', apparent detail, and 'substance', in the lower-mids, than the identical single-pair, as one magazine's writer recently discovered. (Refer to The Audio Critique)."No surprise there, a pair of speakers driven with the same voltage as a single provide 6 dB more output, 10 dB sounds twice as loud to our ears at 1000 Hz. Using two speakers the excursion is only 1/4 a single needs to achieve the same SPL.
A given low distortion SPL may be reached with multiple small cones or a single cone equaling the same cone area if both speaker types have the same Xmax.Most commercial offerings use small cones because most consumers want a small cabinet, and are not very interested in huge dynamics.
A recent thread in DIY audio (http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/204857-test-how-much-voltage-power-do-your-speakers-need.html) found most of the respondents listen at average levels of 80 dB or less, even low efficiency small drivers sound just fine at those levels, which only require a few watts to achieve.
If one desires low distortion front row orchestral, big band, or rock concert levels, a 4" front loaded cone at two or three meters distant will obviously not be up to the task.
For average listening levels, the same cone may be more than adequate.
Art
Edits: 04/23/12
Weltersys,
I appreciate your response. But the arguments you present really do not counter those I've posited, at all.
For instance, we all agree to what you said, here: 'No surprise there, a pair of speakers driven with the same voltage as a single provide 6 dB more output...' (i.e. if you mean; 3 + 3db, relating to power and surface-area).
But that argument does not address the point you dispute since the increase you point out is across the board, albeit centered at 1khz but, inclusive of all frequencies. It does not address my point that increasing cone-surface area results in more 'body' at lower-mids because of the fact that the increased surface-area more efficiently pushes more air thus presenting more substantial lower-mid tones (and the same applies to bass). Other frequencies are un-affected in this regard. Therefore, your argument doesn't apply.
"Using two speakers the excursion is only 1/4 a single needs to achieve the same SPL". This is another admirable argument, with which I agree but, again, it fails to counter those I've presented - for the same reasons outlined above.
"Most commercial offerings use small cones because most consumers want a small cabinet, and are not very interested in huge dynamics". Again, I agree - with the exception of the part about dynamics since, for those seeking realism, dynamics (not necessarily 'huge') is an indispensable part of the package (missing in most small-coned speakers, along with the equally indispensable lower-mids).
However, I respectfully disagree with your final point: "A recent thread in DIY audio (http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/204857-test-how-much-voltage-power-do-your-speakers-need.html) found most of the respondents listen at average levels of 80 dB or less, even low efficiency small drivers sound just fine at those levels, which only require a few watts to achieve."
Specifically: "..even low efficiency small drivers sound just fine at those levels, which only require a few watts to achieve.". My argument was/is not about overall decibel-levels, or wattage. My argument is really about TONE. This does not address that. Indeed, non of the arguments you present addresses the points you seek to dispute, unfortunately.
Nevertheless, I sincerely thank you for your response.
Cheers.
"Specifically: "..even low efficiency small drivers sound just fine at those levels, which only require a few watts to achieve.". My argument was/is not about overall decibel-levels, or wattage. My argument is really about TONE. This does not address that. Indeed, non of the arguments you present addresses the points you seek to dispute, unfortunately."
I prefer the stereo speakers I listen to to be accurate reproducers of the electrical input presented to them.
For musical instrument speakers, "tone" deviation can be a very good thing.
A Leslie speaker provides the perfect "tone" for a Hammond organ, but sounds rather odd when playing recorded music through it.
As far as doubling speakers, as long as voltage applied is the same for two, and the mutual output is correlated, there will be an across the board increase of 6 dB throughout the entire frequency range, the increase is by no means limited to low or mid frequencies.
In practical use, the short HF wavelengths require a specific listening position to realize the gain, in actual small room use the gain nets out to be only 3 dB average, while a test mic (or ears) placed in free space equidistant to a pair of speakers will net 6 dB increase throughout the entire frequency range.
Weltersys,
Interesting. But I still see no viable counter to my initial response.
I'll reiterate; the doubling of cone-surface area results in a subjective increase in the 'weight' of tones at lower frequencies - lower-mids and bass - middle-mids and treble are not similarly affected.
But this should not be too difficult to understand if you consider that; the larger the surface-area, the more efficiently lower frequencies are driven - it's elementary, really.
Oh, and I'm certainly not advocating 'tone deviation'. My point is that small mid-woofers display a dearth of lower-mids, relative to the instruments being reproduced, and increasing the cone-surface area actually increases the 'weight of tone' to a closer semblance of that of the instruments in this lower-mids region. This is no less than I've done countless times, in my own experiments. But if you need further evidence, refer to the Audio Critique's account regarding similar discoveries in double-stacking identical Coincident mini-monitors. Or better still, try it yourself.
Best wishes!
I think cone area matters, whether a 15", or a bunch of small drivers,
can deliver the dynamics, and lower mid punch. The line array's I've
heard using 4 to 6" drivers, sound awesome. But, the larger cones can deliver lower bass without EQ or subwoofer help.
Well, if more cone-surface area is more realistic at lower-mids, then it begs the question: Why are most modern speakers only equipped with single or double small-coned mid-woofers, instead of the more realistic alternative? The 'bottom-line' (profit-margins) seems to be the only obvious reason for this. If so, then audiophiles are being shafted, IMO.That seems to be the answer, so I guess this may be the end of the thread.
Cheers!
Edits: 04/22/12
Really!
Yep! WAF, convenience, aesthetics would also be factors. But you will agree that the laws of physics don't recognize these factors, no doubt. Any design compromised for any reason, including those above, will perhaps inevitably be compromised in performance. I suppose the user needs to decide whether the compromise is worth the compromise, so to speak.
If form does not follow function as a general approach, then yes, performance will likely be compromised. I guess that is the point of priorities. That said, there may be ways of engineering speakers that deliver fashionable yet cheap aesthetics whilst limiting performance compromises. Limit, to point, but not remove. They might even perform well in some areas that we are told are important to audio reproduction (but do not interest me musically).Thankfully, my long time girlfriend enjoys listening to music and is supportive of my enjoyment of music and interest in the whacky systems that bring it into the home. She feels these are more important than what passes for fashionable aesthetics in this sleek and shiny McMansion age of popular "design", within reason, of course. She likes speakers that look like speakers (ie. wooden boxes), as long as they are well made and nicely finished, and she has encouraged me to put two 300L boxes loaded with GPA Duplexes in our small living space, even if she would prefer something a little smaller.
I am thankful.
Cheers.
Edits: 04/23/12
Lucky fella!
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: