|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
65.19.76.104
In Reply to: RE: Audio System Performance (a rant) posted by Goober58 on December 17, 2012 at 19:54:39
The two errors can, potentially, offset each other exactly. One does not listen to individual components, one listens to the complete system, or, more precisely, the complete record-playback chain. There would be no reason to prefer a system with two perfectly "flat" components, vs. one that had two components with exactly offsetting errors. There would be nothing mediocre about such a system.
Some types of errors, especially non-linear distortion, do not have offsetting errors, so in this case your conclusion would be correct, but I don't believe that's what Sordidman was discussing.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Follow Ups:
"The two errors can, potentially, offset each other exactly. One does not listen to individual components, one listens to the complete system, or, more precisely, the complete record-playback chain. There would be no reason to prefer a system with two perfectly "flat" components, vs. one that had two components with exactly offsetting errors. There would be nothing mediocre about such a system."Too much potentially, perfect and exact in your comment to be credible to me.
And again I think it's ludicrous to think you could find a component with a disturbing audible frequency flaw that could be corrected by another component with an exactly opposite frequency flaw without introducing loss or performance hit into the system.
That said, even if you had such a system, good luck when replacing or upgrading components.
And FWIW - for the most part small speakers with low bass limits will not produce deep bass not matter how much deep bass you pump into them. If you want deep bass you do not select speakers with no bass. It's wishful thinking at best to think you can do what you suggest.
"Some types of errors, especially non-linear distortion, do not have offsetting errors, so in this case your conclusion would be correct, but I don't believe that's what Sordidman was discussing."Personally I'm far less effected by perfect frequency response or tonal balance given a reasonably good system than I am by musical drive or captivating vocal performance or the ability to playback all kinds of recordings. IMO the stuff that makes the most difference (given a decent frequency response) can not be replaced or made up for once it is lost.
And without your perfect and exact definers neither can frequency response. Your point, and Soridmans, is a strawman....
Edits: 12/20/12 12/20/12 12/20/12
"Too much potentially, perfect and exact in your comment to be credible to me."
Some errors have exact inverses, so they can be corrected. This is likely to be true for many linear problems associated with electronics, less true for transducers and even less true for acoustics. Examples are RIAA equalization for LP and IEC/CCITT or NAB equalization for magnetic tape. Correction doesn't have to be perfect, in any event, just within perhaps 0.25 dB.
Non-linear distortion is much more difficult, if not impossible, to cancel, because unlike linear errors it results in expanded bandwidth or outright information loss (e.g. clipping). Attempts to cancel this distortion often result in what is perceived as worse distortion due to psycho-acoustic effects.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Don't forget the out-of-band issues Tony, that stool has a third leg and it may be the most fertile area of symbiosis. If I introduce a black box that attenuates spurious energy emitted by a source that the load is susceptible to (or vise-versa) it can be a real miracle cure. Since this tends to be a higher order effect it has a rather abrupt threshold and a small change can make a huge difference.
Rick
Goober58: those 'weasel words' are necessary to have any credibility. If they are not stated they should be assumed but one can't always count on it. There are so many poorly controlled variables in home audio that broad statements say little about a given instance but may be generally useful.
Tony did a good job avoiding falling into the trap of not using those words, at first read that's where I was going, on second read I noted he had covered that. I agree with your point.Discussing the definition of synergy there should be no question that one selects components capable of delivering the most important performance criteria for any particular listener. If I like a powerful rhythmic bass then every component I select should provide that - any component that detracts from that should be rejected. Same for a natural midrange response or whatever other criteria one judges to be important. If you do this the compromises of your system and your components are those you, the buyer and listener, find less important*.
It makes sense, on some kind of an academic level, that one would select a component with an audible midrange dip, if it was important to his listening then be limited to selecting another component to "make up" for it. On a practical level it sounds like non-sense to me, as do black box solutions to poorly selected electrically/physically non compatible components.
*When I learned how to do that, select components based on strengths, it didn't take me long to realize care has to be taken not to get too much of a good thing.
Edits: 12/20/12
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: