But I also know that curiosity is what made us fall into sin...
Not to forget what killed the cat, right?
But I also know that curiosity is what made us fall into sin...
Hey, don’t knock sin it’s some of the best times out thereI put my mouth where my money is: Genelec speakers are often criticised for being boring; this is from a 6moons review of my speakers:
«Never once did I catch myself fantasizing about this venerable Finnish make making the leap into my own listening room. Why? Because the Genelec sound (something of an oxymoron, admittedly) often struck me as being unremittingly focused. Despite the total absence of cabinet signature, iron-fisted bass control and a midband free of any additive blemish, the overall effect rarely seemed to conjure up anything quite as nebulous as listener involvement. But of course you could still justifiably argue they were simply doing the job they were intended for».
Source: http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews2/genelec/1.html
So I am very much in the hifi camp, i.e. Ideally listening through the system and not to the system.
Still, I found the Katz article a bit intriguing. Maybe because it made me want to do the same listening exercise myself on my 8351s.
This is what made me curious:
«My Blender allows us to test this hypothesis and perhaps for the first time, quantify the amount that is needed».
But I also know that curiosity is what made us fall into sin...
TBH, I don't care much for the 6moon reviews as all they are offering is their subjective opinion.
The reason I quoted 6moons on Genelec was to illustrate what happens when a reviewer who is accustomed to tweaks and colouration listens to something which is correct, neutral:
«...the overall effect rarely seemed to conjure up anything quite as nebulous as listener involvement».
I used 6moons to illustrate that I prefer to listen to speakers that do not «conjure...listener involvement».
Hey, don’t knock sin it’s some of the best times out there
( the new laughing emoji looks like a psychopath, it’s kinda disturbing lol)
Yes but i won’t wake in the night to find the winking emoji standing over me with a kitchen knife, that laughing emoji on the other hand ( shit my pants emoji lol)Yep, exactly as psychopath! Not to mention the winking emoji, with the chin on top of his head.
Yes but i won’t wake in the night to find the winking emoji standing over me with a kitchen knife, that laughing emoji on the other hand ( shit my pants emoji lol)
TBH, I don't care much for the 6moon reviews as all they are offering is their subjective opinion.
Bob Katz is one of the best-known and most highly regarded mastering engineers in the USA. In his book, «Mastering audio: the art and the science», he describes seven ear-training exercises for improving your hearing acuity in the context of recording or mastering music.
To compare Mr. Katz with an untrained listener (cleaning lady) is unfair.
(Ignoring the huge amounts of 'expectation' in the whole idea)katz said:No distortion sounds better than a little bit of bad distortion, but moderate, well-distributed distortion sounds better, too!. I believe there's a middle amount where distortion can sound deadly. Why? Because in that middle area, where the overall distortion measures somewhat low, but not close enough to zero, the presence of some higher harmonics can psychoacoustically predominate over the important lower ones...
...why would anyone want to add more distortion to your audio reproduction? The answer is my reason number two: Masking. Just as noise can mask signal, distortion of a certain magnitude and frequency content can mask other distortion.
Technically, is this true? If I feed a time domain signal into a slightly bent transfer function (without any 'points of inflection') I generate harmonic and intermodulation distortion.katz said:Distortion is additive. You, the consumer, cannot take it away,
As the article points out, this is already possible if you make a small effort. So why fiddle about with this stuff?
We know, of course, that visual cues strongly affect our perception of what we think we hear. That is part of what is happening to you when listening to your phantom imaged JBLs with the TV. And, I am not doubting that some people would be fooled by a dummy center channel for the reason you cited. Our acuity for locating things in space is much greater via sight than by hearing alone. I think we are hard wired to trust what we see as overriding what we hear spatially.It is intresting how knowing the pre Amp is there changed his perception of what he heard. I always fancied putting a Center speaker in a stereo setup and have people say what they think while having that Center channel unconnected.
I’d bet you would get a lot of “ oh, the voice is so centred and the image so much more stable “ etc..
I certainly know with my tv setup I have synced the visual with the sound from my two JBL’s, the image is amazing as voices come directly from the mouths of the people on the screen the illusion holds even when I’m far outside the effective stereo zone. The sound never collapsing into one speaker.
Before these JBL’s i had a sound bar, when I first connected it it was terrible as the sound was obviously divorced from the picture... then after awhile Is was as one..., maybe the sound bar ‘ broke in’ lol
This is pretty well what Devialet do in their SAM system. They measure the error between the speaker output and input, invert the transfer function add a thermal and mechanical overload limit and use it to multiply the output by.Technically, is this true? If I feed a time domain signal into a slightly bent transfer function (without any 'points of inflection') I generate harmonic and intermodulation distortion.
Viewed in the frequency domain this looks like a mess that cannot be untangled. But if I feed this distorted output into the complementary bent transfer function, I remove all the distortion. In other words, viewing the distortion in the frequency domain obscures the triviality of what is going on.
Clearly real world distortion may be more complex, so the chances of you exactly counteracting existing distortion through the use of a diode, valve or transistor are slim; the thing to do is avoid audible distortion in the first place. As the article points out, this is already possible if you make a small effort. So why fiddle about with this stuff?
I wonder how Devialet measure the loudspeakers they model in SAM. Do they have (or rent) an anechoic chamber accurate to 20Hz? Also, do they equalise the loudspeakers anechoically upto 20kHz or is it just a bass function? It's a wonderful idea which should be used more, but a huge commitment (and expense) to get right.This is pretty well what Devialet do in their SAM system. They measure the error between the speaker output and input, invert the transfer function add a thermal and mechanical overload limit and use it to multiply the output by.
For small speakers it is an amplification and phase correction and perhaps can be seen as a distortion of the frequency response in itself when it levels off the bass gain to avoid damage. For several big speakers it has to reduce the bass driver amplitude.
https://www.devialet.com/en-eu/expert-pro-sam-ready-speakers/harbeth/40.2/
Do you have to do that, or can these findings be relied upon?Do they have (or rent) an anechoic chamber accurate to 20Hz?
Low-Frequency Loudspeaker Assessment by Nearfield Sound-Pressure Measurement* D. B. KEELE
A loudspeaker test technique is described which depends on nearfield pressure measurements made in a nonanechoic environment. The technique allows extremely simple measurements to be made of frequency response, power response, distortion, and electroacoustical efficiency...
...The theory presented, along with supporting experimental measurements,shows that loudspeaker system piston-range characteristics can easily be measured by sampling the nearfield pressure with a test microphone held close to the acoustic radiator. Valid nearfield measurements may be taken in any reasonable environment. without the use of an anechoic chamber or large outdoor test site. Experimental measurements using the nearfield technique show excellent agreement with more traditional test methods.
Yes and no.Do you have to do that, or can these findings be relied upon?
http://www.xlrtechs.com/dbkeele.com/PDF/Keele (1974-04 AES Published) - Nearfield Paper.pdf