solderdude
Administrator
measureutternutter
Posts: 4,882
|
Post by solderdude on Nov 30, 2013 13:03:23 GMT
I agree that the room is 'taken into account' by our brains. However, if one places a speaker in the wrong position, one it was not designed for, or has a very 'hard' room (or very damped one) the overall impression and how it actually sounds DOES become a major factor and a speaker may not be possible to be 'isolated' by the brain although it would appear so. Put that same speaker and the same equipment as well as the music and listener in a very different room or vastly different position and the impression will differ even after we got ourselves accustomed to the sound/room. Less so when used as nearfield monitors (desktop speakers) so I do agree that in some cases the room does NOT make that much of a difference but know (as well as you do) that speaker placement and room treatment make ALL the difference. Much more so than any passive filter or amplifier could possibly see. I would like to see some evidence of actual speaker output signals (measured with a microphone) in controlled conditions (sonic dead room) where the ONLY difference is an amplifier with a very high damping factor and a low one. I hoped to see decay plots that indicate an audible effect on the way a stimulus dies out which shows the real effect of the electrical part of damping where the mechanical/acoustical damping part is not changed). No passive XO's versus active XO and also no comparing of electrical output signals of the amp for obvious reasons. Passive filters, especially those that are close to the resonance frequency of the tweeter/midrange and (heaven forbid) woofer, have a distinct influence on the total sound and can make or break a passive speaker more so than when performed actively. I have heard many fabulous sounding passive speakers even with multiple XO points that have well design XO's and also heard some active speakers (been using active XO's for over 30 years now) and think that designing a good passive speaker is quite possible but it is easier to make one with active XO's. One is not necessarily better than the other concept though. I have cleaned the thread so only the real discussion is left in place. Most people (especially those in high-end sound) are of the opinion that speakers are MUCH better performers than headphones and see headphones as a compromise for when speaker-fi is not possible. creating a 'flat' speaker is MUCH MUCH easier than it is to create a 'flat' headphone. The fact that all speakers as well as headphones sound quite different (to a lot of people) is testimony that the perfect transducer still isn't made, however nice some may sound.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2013 13:05:33 GMT
. . . and the unpalatable truth is that even iPods as come with an iPhone better most separates HiFi systems for clarity and lack of distortion. They are less fatiguing to listen to and more enjoyable, although they do not image like the best speaker systems do. Hi Ashley, welcome to the forum. You have probably forgotten more about building active speakers than I would ever know . . . However, when I got to the point in your post where you make the statement above, I can't really take anything else you say seriously.
|
|
|
Post by ashley on Nov 30, 2013 13:20:03 GMT
I'm not keen on opinion, so I stuck to what can be proven and everything I've said thus far is well proven and documented. Google will show that. One final point I'd make is that hi fi has suffered years of BS, total rubbish and pseudo science with the result that even simple basic facts are forgotten. One of the first hi if speaker manufacturers was Wharfedale, it was founded by Gilbert Briggs before WW2 and after it, he employed one of the great engineers, Raymond Cook who went on to make Kef a World leader. As a result of pressure from Gramophone magazine and enthusiastic owners, Gilbert Briggs wrote a book called Loudspeakers and it was first published in 1948 and many times more, so popular was it. Gilbert states correctly that we don't hear quite large changes in the amplitude response of speakers. They were massive in 1948 and you still couldn't hear them, so why are so many people talking about a flat response now, especially as in attempting to achieve it, they are probably altering phase and ruining any chance the crossover has of conforming to the predictions of the engineers that conceived them. Phase changes we dislike and we do hear, big amplitude changes we don't. Most competent speakers are + or - 2dB or so without fiddling and that's more the good enough. Think about it. Did you read this piece which is the product of a senior research engineer in Siemens. hddaudio.net/viewtopic.php?id=65
|
|
solderdude
Administrator
measureutternutter
Posts: 4,882
|
Post by solderdude on Nov 30, 2013 13:31:57 GMT
Most competent headphones are +/- 10dB or so. The cheaper ones +/-30dB is quite common in the audible range. Can you explain why I can hear it when I adjust a simple slider in an equalizer (passive, active or digital) +/- 1dB yet if amplitude is not that big a deal ? Phase response in a headphone is usually quite good b.t.w. as there are no XO's to mess it up. With speakers the different back to front positioning of tweeters/woofers and vertical alignment brings more phase and timing issues than filters do. How do you prevent phase shifts with active XO's (substractive filters ?) I fully agree on the BS it is all around us and becomes worse with the years it seems or I do become older and less tolerant . The factor 10,000 DF amps that were made back in the days is one of them and we don't see those numbers any more. Do you know of any really scientific proof of damping factor on real world speakers where a difference between say 200x DF versus a 20x is shown (linky please) Also what is wrong with my reasoning that loading a source with a 4 Ohm impedance isn't going to have a vastly different current (which does the actual braking action) when loaded with an extra 0.0001 or 0.1 Ohm ? How could that translate to something audible ?
|
|
|
Post by ashley on Nov 30, 2013 13:46:53 GMT
Solderdude
1. I've covered all this and explained that a cheap pair of actives, say Yamaha or Behringer will be so much more clear than any passive speaker you've heard, it'll make you think about the facts presented by Dr. CS.
2. If you alter amplitude using EQ you are also altering phase and that's what you hear. We worked with several professionals who record for the BBC and others, one particularly uses mainly an M + S mike to a modern digital Nagra. To him EQ completely ruins his recordings and they are the best I've ever heard, so I believe him.
3. Measuring speakers and understanding the results is a complex and time consuming subject and not really relevant to the superior clarity of active speakers compared to passive. This is what I explained in my first post.
My first involvement with active speakers was with one of the pioneers, ATC who first produced active crossovers in the seventies and whose drivers and electronic design appeared as the Meridian M1. These early three ways were very obviously better than their passive counterparts, but not as clear as the better two-ways because of the impossibility of designing a phase correct crossover for a driver with a 24dB/Oct roll off on the intersection point. A driver is only phase linear as long as it's response is flat. You don't want a crossover near middle C anyway, but if you must, you'll need a larger mid with an amplitude response that extends at least an octave below.
|
|
solderdude
Administrator
measureutternutter
Posts: 4,882
|
Post by solderdude on Nov 30, 2013 17:56:03 GMT
Sooooo if I alter phase and not the amplitude in the mentioned frequency range I get the same audible effect ?
Interesting.... I do wonder though... how can digital EQ be explained as this does NOT alter the phase response but does alter the amplitude response yet has the very same audible effect even though such a filter adds pre- and post-ringing in the audible band where analog only has post-ringing ? No phase shifts, same amplitude change, very similar audible effect..
Now that is something I can fully agree with.
Do the filters in your speaker designs have NO phase shifts BETWEEN the XO point an say 2f on either side ? Is that phase shift (seeing as you apply 24dB/oct filters) not many times more severe than what a simple EQ would bring in that same area when using a wideband speaker ?
Can I ask you what is the purpose of your posting here as you have your own website and forum as this forum is aiming at headphones and personal audio ? B.T.W. I do believe your speakers sound excellent (so do mine and my EQ'ed headphones) but don't think you will find/attract much buyers here (small forum anyway).
Basically what you are trying to convey is that even when speakers have the same FR but one is active and the other one is passive the active one has more clarity... noted
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2013 18:28:03 GMT
. . . the unpalatable truth is that even iPods as come with an iPhone better most separates HiFi systems for clarity and lack of distortion. They are less fatiguing to listen to and more enjoyable, although they do not image like the best speaker systems do. FOR SALE CAMBRIDGE AUDIO STREAM MAGIC SYNOLOGY DS213J NAS 2 X WESTERN DIGITAL RED 3Tb HDD's GOOGLE NEXUS 7 32Gb TABLET (All less than 3 months old) MUSICAL FIDELITY X-10D BUFFER AMP (RG modified) MUSICAL FIDELITY X-CANS V2 (RG modified) HD-600, DT-990, SR-80, etc.,etc, the usual suspects SHANLING 3-D AUDIO STP-80 VALVE AMP Pair of B&W CDM-7NT in Rosewood Veneer Interconnects and Speaker Cable by DNM. Kimber Cable Power Cables. URGENTLY WANTED PAIR OF I-PODS AND ANY I-PHONE
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Nov 30, 2013 18:34:17 GMT
I have a Nano for sale. £539. It's highly active. What have music and hi fi got in common? Pitch.
|
|
solderdude
Administrator
measureutternutter
Posts: 4,882
|
Post by solderdude on Nov 30, 2013 19:35:19 GMT
Let's not judge a book by its cover... Ashley seems to be a legit designer and his speakers are most likely WELL worth their money.
I read some of his posts and completely understand what he is on about (in these posts) and agree with the most part. In this case he is questioning Aaksheys review of the Essence one with muses opamps fitted.
In essence (no pun intended) I almost completely agree with Ashley's POV except for the fact that added harmonics are always detrimental, they aren't in certain cases as it depends on the type of 'added' distortion. There is distortion and there is distortion, ranging from in-offensive and maybe even pleasant to some to downright nasty.
Funny thing is Ashley is having the same doubts about Aakshey's test/listen methodology as Rabbit and me have and is suggesting the same methodology of testing as we did before.
I swear the responses Ashley made in that thread could have been coming from NwAvGuy and that reason alone makes me like him anyway.... The claim his speakers outperform all Passive speakers out there I simply take as 'protecting his business'. Can't really tell though as I never heard one.
EKbluesboy:
I'll buy an Ipod (don't own one, hate the concept/hype) and trade you for your system. Don't forget to install the Dirac player with the (digital) EQ to make the sound of the earpods more enjoyable realistic.
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Nov 30, 2013 19:43:23 GMT
Actually, he does remind me very much of Harold who I really liked actually in spite of Harold's attitude. However, Harold worked from the idea of low cost .... can you hear the difference and it's all in the design, but here we're talking quite a high cost item that has been reviewed in a daft way by someone with no experience. So I don't blame Ashley for saying something, although the discussion is about design rather than the speakers themselves which is a pity Looks like we need to get active then? (for speakers anyway)
|
|
solderdude
Administrator
measureutternutter
Posts: 4,882
|
Post by solderdude on Nov 30, 2013 19:47:41 GMT
I already am active with my speakers for 30 years now although I do have very nice sounding passive ones as well. It's all about correctly using the right speakers and XO's.
For those who wonder who Harold is... NwAvGuy.
|
|
|
Post by ashley on Nov 30, 2013 21:30:15 GMT
We have three Facebook groups and the AVI Forum, so I'm not interested in discussing my speakers on this one, simply to make it clear that the best actives do compare favourably with the best headphones. Our current models are remarkably close, but not quite as clear as the HD800s in the opinion of two or three customers who own both.
This is possible for the reasons I have presented. After you are used to the best actives you will not tolerate passives because they all boom in the bass, are harsher and because the the upper mid treble is always unpleasantly accentuated by the crossover, even on the best. We've sold about 5000 pairs of the model range of which Techboy's is the last but one and we have literally thousands of testimonials supporting this statement.
Phase behaviour of a crossover is a separate issue from the phase in the driver and one cannot correct the other. Therefore the two must be seen as separate. An electronic crossover can do exactly as say Linkwitz and Riley predict and drivers are what they are. Very important too is 24dB/Oct so that the tweeter in a two way is not working or audible below the intersection point. Absolute control of the drivers (compared to passives where it has been relinquished) and the steep filters account for much of the extra clarity.
I've had a look at a number of headphone measurements and note that they tend to be impeccably behaved over the frequency range of music, say up to 3-5kHz and then just like speaker drivers, they go into break up as dictated by diaphragm diameter. Therefore the large amplitude variations above will have an impact, but a small one because there isn't much up there and your ears sensitivity is tailing off. Remember Fletcher Munson and that we're most sensitive between 200 and around 3kHz.
A 6" driver breaks up at around 1.4kHz and although things might be reasonable till past 2kHz and tweeters aren't usually good sounding below 3kHz, so in a passive speaker you have three problems that headphones don't , so they are far worse even than modest ones.
Actives are far better controlled and the best drivers are exceptionally good, so the gap is closed. Therefore Techboy's comparison with HD 650s is reasonable and if you google for reviews, you'll find others saying much the same.
In conclusion I do hope you won't just sit there announcing that passive speakers can be as good as actives because that's wrong and quite basic ones for around £200 UK sterling will prove otherwise, even though they'll have soft bass and sharp treble because the drivers are so cheap. They'll still have quite remarkable clarity by comparison though. In my opinion few are happy with passive speakers, all are irritated by their distortions, but most don't realise because they are so used to it. This problem has still helped to kill a dying industry though.
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Dec 1, 2013 6:54:48 GMT
No one disputed or even suggested that passive are as good or better than Actives. Actives are often used in pro apps in any case. No one doubts their superior ability for a wider dynamic range and better fidelity.
This thread was about comparing your speakers with an HD650. I would have much preferred to have seen a comparison of your speakers with another active around the same price. It would have been on a more even keel then and we would all get a more balanced view of your passive speakers and more in context.
So far, all we have seen is a daft comparison with a headphone and your explanations about the superiority of active designs.
I'd like to see how it fares with say, proacs at the same price level and another active speaker. That would be more useful.
I still don't see the usefulness of comparing a speaker with a headphone in spite of what you say. If we do think it a right comparison, then are we saying a £300 headphone with a £200 amp matches the sound of £1300 speakers? In which case, headphones are indeed better value. (With no crossover to worry about too)
However, if we considered image, maybe things would look different. Dynamic range could be compared, tone and detail but not image. Isn't that part of the sonic picture?
So are you saying that a comparison with an HD650 is fair and your speakers offer the same detail?
It seems to show what good value headphone combos are.
|
|
|
Post by techboy on Dec 1, 2013 6:58:17 GMT
There are lots of comparisons for AVIs with other actives and passives both, you can google for them
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Dec 1, 2013 7:04:23 GMT
There are lots of comparisons for AVIs with other actives and passives both, you can google for them I'm well aware of Google. One thing I have seen about them is that the bass rolls away and a sub woofer is available for them. That could account for less in room resonances too. One magazine alluded to this if there were people who liked to listen to say, organ music that needs a robust bass in order to reproduce it properly. It sounds as though it has a powerful amp inside though though with a separate one for each driver?
|
|