|
Home > Archive > Electrical Engineering > May 2006 > How do TINY speakers produce such BIG sound?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
How do TINY speakers produce such BIG sound?
|
|
|
| Over the last few years electronic devices have produced some impressive
sounds from a tiny crappy looking almost-flat speaker.
For example, many cells phones have a "no hands" mode where the tiny
speaker easily projects the sound for several yards.
Another example is my USB memory device which can also play music. The
sound is not hi-fi but its very impressive for such a tiny speaker.
How the heck is this done?
(1) Is it done by better components like stronger magnets, stiffer cone
materials, longer or shorter(?) throw voicecoils, etc.
(2) Is it done by acoustic processing (like SRS Labs's "WOW!") but I
don't think that was so available a few years ago when the better
speakers started showing up.
So how is it done?
| |
| J. B. Wood 2006-05-10, 9:21 am |
| In article <Xns97BF73E7A23FB74C1H4@127.0.0.1>, Andy <nomail@nomail.com> wrote:
> Over the last few years electronic devices have produced some impressive
> sounds from a tiny crappy looking almost-flat speaker.
>
> So how is it done?
Hello, and I have witnessed the same thing. The perhaps unexpected volume
and fidelity can be attributed to speaker design/quality, enclosure
acoustics and speaker siting within the enclosure. Capability does not
always correlate to bulk. There are small high-end audio bookshelf and
pedestal-mounted speakers whose performance equals or excceds that of
their larger brethren. Even a low to middle end producer like Bose has
done some impressive things with their "acoustic waveguide" design.
Granted these transducers are larger than that found in hand-held
equipment. Signal processing such as Dolby NR can certainly provide
enhancement although I'm uncertain as to what is used in cell phones. I
would expect acoustic signal processing to be applied more in a device
designed to reproduce music.
Another acoustic/psychoacoustic phenomenon relating to fidelity that comes
into play is that of the "missing fundamental" (you can Google for further
into). Which is why some of us still remember getting decent rock and
roll sound from shirt pocket sized AM transistor radios. Sincerely,
John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail: wood@itd.nrl.navy.mil
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337
| |
| Sam Wormley 2006-05-10, 10:21 am |
| Andy wrote:
> Over the last few years electronic devices have produced some impressive
> sounds from a tiny crappy looking almost-flat speaker.
>
> For example, many cells phones have a "no hands" mode where the tiny
> speaker easily projects the sound for several yards.
>
> Another example is my USB memory device which can also play music. The
> sound is not hi-fi but its very impressive for such a tiny speaker.
>
> How the heck is this done?
>
> (1) Is it done by better components like stronger magnets, stiffer cone
> materials, longer or shorter(?) throw voicecoils, etc.
>
> (2) Is it done by acoustic processing (like SRS Labs's "WOW!") but I
> don't think that was so available a few years ago when the better
> speakers started showing up.
>
> So how is it done?
>
Look at nature... birds, for example.
| |
| CWatters 2006-05-10, 11:21 am |
|
"Andy" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97BF73E7A23FB74C1H4@127.0.0.1...
> Over the last few years electronic devices have produced some impressive
> sounds from a tiny crappy looking almost-flat speaker.
even some headphones with a 8mm diameter speaker can sound good.
At high power levels the cone has to move quite a long way. I believe that
suspending a small cone so that it can move a long way is the hard part.
| |
|
| there are two parts to the moving cone issue: it's also important that
the wave can't somehow get to the back side of the cone -- that makes
it 'reactive' and reduces the engergy actually transmitted into the
air. It might worth thinking about how the ear works -- that little
drum moves enough even with low fequency waves well enough for us to
hear them.
| |
|
| there are two parts to the moving cone issue: it's also important that
the wave can't somehow get to the back side of the cone -- that makes
it 'reactive' and reduces the engergy actually transmitted into the
air. It might worth thinking about how the ear works -- that little
drum moves enough even with low fequency waves well enough for us to
hear them.
| |
| DaWalRus 2006-05-10, 12:21 pm |
| Tony wrote:
> there are two parts to the moving cone issue: it's also important that
> the wave can't somehow get to the back side of the cone -- that makes
> it 'reactive' and reduces the engergy actually transmitted into the
> air. It might worth thinking about how the ear works -- that little
> drum moves enough even with low fequency waves well enough for us to
> hear them.
Ever see the old device that was just a magnet with a voice coil and a wood
screw that you could mount on a door for example that would use that to
resonate? Good example of the ear the way the tiny drum resonates the body.
| |
| Michael C 2006-05-10, 12:21 pm |
| "Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:G4l8g.939491$x96.585857@attbi_s72...
> Look at nature... birds, for example.
Most birds have very little freq range, it's much easier to make something
louder if the freq doesn't change much.
Michael
| |
| Lostgallifreyan 2006-05-10, 1:21 pm |
| Andy <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in news:Xns97BF73E7A23FB74C1H4@127.0.0.1:
> Over the last few years electronic devices have produced some impressive
> sounds from a tiny crappy looking almost-flat speaker.
>
> For example, many cells phones have a "no hands" mode where the tiny
> speaker easily projects the sound for several yards.
>
> Another example is my USB memory device which can also play music. The
> sound is not hi-fi but its very impressive for such a tiny speaker.
>
> How the heck is this done?
>
> (1) Is it done by better components like stronger magnets, stiffer cone
> materials, longer or shorter(?) throw voicecoils, etc.
>
> (2) Is it done by acoustic processing (like SRS Labs's "WOW!") but I
> don't think that was so available a few years ago when the better
> speakers started showing up.
>
> So how is it done?
>
>
There is an old mediaeval instrument called the Racket (I kid you not, nor
is it viol...). This racket is a folded tube, that runs back on itself
several times within an overall box-like structure. It's small enough to
hold in front of your head like a bulky trumpet, but produces a bass more
full than a bassoon. I think the makers of mobile phones might have
consciously studied that idea to get their extended response. There is
something tonally similar to the racket, and I'm only partly being funny
about that. 
In short, the secret is in coupling the movement of a diaphragm to the air
to get long waves efficiently. Good coupling to the waveguide to avoid the
need for excess power. This might result in monotonal bass, but careful
selection of the fold points in the waveguide will reinforce enough
harmonics to make the sound musically useful. The payoff is a curious
timbral overlay to the original input, and that is a very familiar quality
in the sound from a mobile phone. Old audio players would boom too, but the
difference here is that this property has been explored and used
effectively by revisiting some very old ideas in music making.
| |
| Jan Panteltje 2006-05-10, 1:21 pm |
| On a sunny day (Wed, 10 May 2006 11:23:38 +0100) it happened Andy
<nomail@nomail.com> wrote in <Xns97BF73E7A23FB74C1H4@127.0.0.1>:
>Over the last few years electronic devices have produced some impressive
>sounds from a tiny crappy looking almost-flat speaker.
>
>For example, many cells phones have a "no hands" mode where the tiny
>speaker easily projects the sound for several yards.
>
>Another example is my USB memory device which can also play music. The
>sound is not hi-fi but its very impressive for such a tiny speaker.
>
>How the heck is this done?
>
>(1) Is it done by better components like stronger magnets, stiffer cone
>materials, longer or shorter(?) throw voicecoils, etc.
>
>(2) Is it done by acoustic processing (like SRS Labs's "WOW!") but I
>don't think that was so available a few years ago when the better
>speakers started showing up.
As people do not seem to pay attention anymore to 'distortion', most
modern cellphones use pulse width modulated audio amps for better efficiency,
longer battery life, and more power.
Small powerful speakers have been around since the sixties.
>
>So how is it done?
>
>
| |
| Jan Panteltje 2006-05-10, 1:21 pm |
| On a sunny day (Wed, 10 May 2006 12:33:42 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in <G4l8g.939491$x96.585857@attbi_s72>:
>
>
> Look at nature... birds, for example.
Idiot
| |
| Kalman Rubinson 2006-05-10, 3:21 pm |
| On Wed, 10 May 2006 10:33:26 -0400, "DaWalRus" <DaWalRus@xemaps.com>
wrote:
>Tony wrote:
>
> Ever see the old device that was just a magnet with a voice coil and a wood
>screw that you could mount on a door for example that would use that to
>resonate? Good example of the ear the way the tiny drum resonates the body.
Not really. The ear drum is compliant at audio frequencies and the
woodscrew is not. Besides, the ear drum does not "resonate(s) the
body."
Kal
| |
|
| In article <jd9462hk8uccrsmsifsk5hvh4ns1vds1gk@4ax.com>, Kalman Rubinson
<kr4@nyu.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 May 2006 10:33:26 -0400, "DaWalRus" <DaWalRus@xemaps.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Not really. The ear drum is compliant at audio frequencies and the
> woodscrew is not. Besides, the ear drum does not "resonate(s) the
> body."
>
> Kal
See if you can figure out how the ear works, by reading this :-)
Damned complicated. Second link has pictures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_system
http://thalamus.wustl.edu/course/audvest.html
Paul
| |
|
| Hello Michael,
>
> Most birds have very little freq range, it's much easier to make something
> louder if the freq doesn't change much.
>
Not the ones out here in California, they can sing rather pretty songs.
And loud.
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com
| |
| Alex Coleman 2006-05-10, 4:21 pm |
| On 10 May 2006, J. B. Wood<wood@itd.nrl.navy.mil> wrote:
> Another acoustic/psychoacoustic phenomenon relating to fidelity
> that comes into play is that of the "missing fundamental" (you can
> Google for further into). Which is why some of us still remember
> getting decent rock and roll sound from shirt pocket sized AM
> transistor radios. Sincerely,
I think this is what SRL Labs's WOW technology is all about.
| |
| Kalman Rubinson 2006-05-10, 4:21 pm |
| On Wed, 10 May 2006 18:38:25 GMT, nospam@needed.com (Paul) wrote:
>In article <jd9462hk8uccrsmsifsk5hvh4ns1vds1gk@4ax.com>, Kalman Rubinson
><kr4@nyu.edu> wrote:
>
>
>See if you can figure out how the ear works, by reading this :-)
>Damned complicated. Second link has pictures.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_system
>http://thalamus.wustl.edu/course/audvest.html
Thanks. Not necessary. Those pages are OK but superficial and, in a
number of small details, misleading. Try the Kandel book referenced
in the Wikipedia page for more info (although it is getting a needed
update shortly).
Kal
| |
| Lostgallifreyan 2006-05-10, 4:21 pm |
| Alex Coleman <no@no-email.com> wrote in
news:Xns97BFC8E4ED5AD71F3M4@127.0.0.1:
> On 10 May 2006, J. B. Wood<wood@itd.nrl.navy.mil> wrote:
>
>
> I think this is what SRL Labs's WOW technology is all about.
>
Sounds like the 'Bass Maximiser' in the Hyperprism DirectShow effects,
which transfer energy from the fundamental to the harmonics. It's not
exactly missing, it's just reduced relative to the harmonics, which our
hearing infers the fundamental from. I think it's a horrible effect. A
better way to get more bass energy to be perceived is to tighten the
envelope decay, so you stll need more bass handling capacity, but only for
short pulses. Even if the decay drops back sharply before an extended fade,
we still hear it as if it was full. That trick might not be used in mobile
phones, but it's definitely been used in radio to get a solid rock sound
from a small radio.
| |
| CBFalconer 2006-05-10, 10:21 pm |
| Lostgallifreyan wrote:
>
.... snip ...
>
> There is an old mediaeval instrument called the Racket (I kid you
> not, nor is it viol...). This racket is a folded tube, that runs
> back on itself several times within an overall box-like structure.
> It's small enough to hold in front of your head like a bulky
> trumpet, but produces a bass more full than a bassoon. I think the
> makers of mobile phones might have consciously studied that idea
> to get their extended response. There is something tonally similar
> to the racket, and I'm only partly being funny about that.
>
> In short, the secret is in coupling the movement of a diaphragm to
> the air to get long waves efficiently. Good coupling to the
> waveguide to avoid the need for excess power. This might result in
> monotonal bass, but careful selection of the fold points in the
> waveguide will reinforce enough harmonics to make the sound
> musically useful. The payoff is a curious timbral overlay to the
> original input, and that is a very familiar quality in the sound
> from a mobile phone. Old audio players would boom too, but the
> difference here is that this property has been explored and used
> effectively by revisiting some very old ideas in music making.
Look up the Klipshorn, and folded horns in general. The latter
often use the corners of a room as the final part of the horn
mechanism, and can be very efficient.
--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>
Also see <http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/>
| |
| Peter Dettmann 2006-05-10, 11:21 pm |
| On Wed, 10 May 2006 14:55:53 +0100, "CWatters"
<colin.watters@turnersNOSPAMoak.plus.net> wrote:
>
>"Andy" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns97BF73E7A23FB74C1H4@127.0.0.1...
>
>even some headphones with a 8mm diameter speaker can sound good.
>
>At high power levels the cone has to move quite a long way. I believe that
>suspending a small cone so that it can move a long way is the hard part.
>
Yes it is not the cone size that is important, it should only pump the
air. It is how the cone is coupled to the outside world. An example
is the exponential horn loud speaker, where a very small cone is
efficientl coupled to the real world. The closer a design can get to
this is what one would aim for. The practical problem with a really
good exponential horn is of course due to space considerations.
Peter Dettmann
| |
| spencer anderson 2006-05-10, 11:21 pm |
| they produce great sound because of the nano drivers they have installed
within them. Take bose for example, they used the latest technology to
surround you in music, movies, games, etc.
"CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:446269D6.E8EDE117@yahoo.com...
> Lostgallifreyan wrote:
> ... snip ...
>
> Look up the Klipshorn, and folded horns in general. The latter
> often use the corners of a room as the final part of the horn
> mechanism, and can be very efficient.
>
> --
> "If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
> the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
> "show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
> "Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
> More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>
> Also see <http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/>
>
>
| |
| Roy L. Fuchs 2006-05-11, 1:21 am |
| On Wed, 10 May 2006 14:55:53 +0100, "CWatters"
<colin.watters@turnersNOSPAMoak.plus.net> Gave us:
>
>"Andy" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns97BF73E7A23FB74C1H4@127.0.0.1...
>
>even some headphones with a 8mm diameter speaker can sound good.
>
>At high power levels the cone has to move quite a long way. I believe that
>suspending a small cone so that it can move a long way is the hard part.
>
No. It is easy. Doing it so it will last is the hard part.
| |
| Alex Coleman 2006-05-11, 7:21 am |
| On 11 May 2006, Peter Dettmann<peter@aardvark.net.au> wrote:
>
> Yes it is not the cone size that is important, it should only pump
> the air. It is how the cone is coupled to the outside world. An
> example is the exponential horn loud speaker, where a very small
> cone is efficientl coupled to the real world. The closer a design
> can get to this is what one would aim for. The practical problem
> with a really good exponential horn is of course due to space
> considerations.
Paradoxically, it seems to me that these devices with the micro
speaker have no space for anything like a horn. There is just a
micro speaker and it is stuck to the iner surface of the hard plastic
casing which has a series of seemingly inadequate perforations.
| |
| Alex Coleman 2006-05-11, 7:21 am |
| On 11 May 2006, spencer anderson<se_anderson@alltel.net> wrote:
> they produce great sound because of the nano drivers they have
> installed within them. Take bose for example, they used the latest
> technology to surround you in music, movies, games, etc.
What exactly is a nano driver?
Google does not comes up much apart from the name of some Nano iPod and
its software drivers. Or sets of golf clubs!
| |
| Lostgallifreyan 2006-05-11, 8:21 am |
| Alex Coleman <no@no-email.com> wrote in
news:Xns97C07183CDF9A71F3M4@127.0.0.1:
> There is just a
> micro speaker and it is stuck to the iner surface of the hard plastic
> casing which has a series of seemingly inadequate perforations.
Exactly. While the sealed baffle is NOT the most efficient, at all, it
does extend the bass response. If the case shell is hard enough, and the
driver has a neodymium iron boron magnet (as is likely at that small size
to increase efficiency), then the smaller the airflow through the case, the
stronger the bass. I mentioned in another post the use of pulsed energy,
compressing the sound such that the decays are more abrupt than usual,
falling to a lower level than usual, leaving the attacks to stand out. That
makes the sound 'punchier', and that allows a strong drive over shorter
periods to allow power saving and some way to overcome the losses due to
inefficient coupling. There may well be other tricks too, like the shifting
of amplitude from the bass fundamental to the next few harmonics.
| |
| Lostgallifreyan 2006-05-11, 8:21 am |
| Alex Coleman <no@no-email.com> wrote in
news:Xns97C07204D1EE171F3M4@127.0.0.1:
> On 11 May 2006, spencer anderson<se_anderson@alltel.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> What exactly is a nano driver?
>
> Google does not comes up much apart from the name of some Nano iPod and
> its software drivers. Or sets of golf clubs!
>
Good question. Even if you add bose to the terms, then try again after
changing to the Google suggestion of nonodrive, I don't see any different.
Perhaps it's related to the term 'plug top' which wasn't in the training I
was given 20 years ago, but seems to be both current and dating back 40
years. Whatever was wrong with 'plug and socket'? WHile we're at it,
could these new terms mean that an incandescent lamp will be known as a
'bulb' to differentiate from a 'tube'? And if anyone has any advance
warning of impending legislation/convention/regulation to cease calling a
spade a spade, I'd welcome the head's up. That is all. >
| |
|
| I think it has to do with the frequencies you want to reproduce. To
play bass frequencies you need to move more air masses. To play treble
frequencies you don't need to move much air. Have you tried to play a
techno song with your mp3 mobile? The drums are aweful. But the high
frequencies are almost cristal clear. Never ask a good response to bass
freqs in a 1/2"x1/2" speaker, I suppose...:-)
| |
| VWWall 2006-05-11, 2:21 pm |
| CBFalconer wrote:
> Look up the Klipshorn, and folded horns in general. The latter
> often use the corners of a room as the final part of the horn
> mechanism, and can be very efficient.
I built a "Klipschorn" from drawings one of my fellow engineers at Bell
Labs drew up in 1950. With the popularity of stereo, it was hard to
find a room with corners in the right place, but it made a wondrous
sound! :-)
From my post of 5/6/06 "Speaker impedance":
".... I recall talking to Paul Klipsch, the inventor of the "Klipsch
horn". This was a speaker enclosure about six feet tall and four feet
wide that sat in the corner of a room and used the corner walls and
floor as an extension of the horn. Paul contended that there was no
such thing as a "small" low frequency wave."
I've often wondered what he might think of the speakers they're now
offering under his name!
Virg Wall, P.E.
| |
|
| On Wed, 10 May 2006 19:44:55 +0100, Alex Coleman
<no@no-email.com> wrote:
>On 10 May 2006, J. B. Wood<wood@itd.nrl.navy.mil> wrote:
>
>
>I think this is what SRL Labs's WOW technology is all about.
No it's about the other parameters of proper design.
A speaker housing and entire device cabinet that doesn't
resonant. An amp circuit that can provide the necessary
current without severe distortion. A speaker that can
likewise handle it.
Many simply thought the size of the speaker was the main
criteria when it is simply that small speakers are also more
commonly very cheap ones. Someone could make a really low
quality larger speaker, put it in a terribly resonant
cabinet and drive it will too low a wattage amp and it too
would sound terrible... though tend to have more bass.
| |
| Alex Coleman 2006-05-11, 9:21 pm |
| On 11 May 2006, Lostgallifreyan<no-one@nowhere.net> wrote:
> Alex Coleman <no@no-email.com> wrote in
> news:Xns97C07183CDF9A71F3M4@127.0.0.1:
>
>
> Exactly. While the sealed baffle is NOT the most efficient, at
> all, it does extend the bass response. If the case shell is hard
> enough, and the driver has a neodymium iron boron magnet (as is
> likely at that small size to increase efficiency), then the smaller
> the airflow through the case, the stronger the bass. I mentioned in
> another post the use of pulsed energy, compressing the sound such
> that the decays are more abrupt than usual, falling to a lower
> level than usual, leaving the attacks to stand out. That makes the
> sound 'punchier', and that allows a strong drive over shorter
> periods to allow power saving and some way to overcome the losses
> due to inefficient coupling. There may well be other tricks too,
> like the shifting of amplitude from the bass fundamental to the
> next few harmonics.
>
What you say seems to make a lot of sense to me.
It seems also to be similar to what SRS Labs provides in their audio
rendering products. http://www.srslabs.com/ae-techindex820.asp.
That link leads to things like these:
Ehnaced spatial rendering and sound impact
http://www.srslabs.com/ae-theoryofoperation8282.asp
Bass enhancement thru harmonics
http://www.srslabs.com/ae-theoryofoperation8272.asp
etc
| |
| Lostgallifreyan 2006-05-12, 5:21 am |
| kony <spam@spam.com> wrote in
news:dc3762p1pt77leoh955f8aepmn41jvaig5@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 10 May 2006 19:44:55 +0100, Alex Coleman
> <no@no-email.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> No it's about the other parameters of proper design.
>
> A speaker housing and entire device cabinet that doesn't
> resonant. An amp circuit that can provide the necessary
> current without severe distortion. A speaker that can
> likewise handle it.
>
> Many simply thought the size of the speaker was the main
> criteria when it is simply that small speakers are also more
> commonly very cheap ones. Someone could make a really low
> quality larger speaker, put it in a terribly resonant
> cabinet and drive it will too low a wattage amp and it too
> would sound terrible... though tend to have more bass.
No again. > He's right.
There are two diverging methods now. You're talking about the pure form,
the striving for true hi-fi, where basic techniques are refined.
THis thread isn't about that though. It's about how speakers small enough
to have no chance of rendering real air moving capability without shaking
themselves to brittle fatigued pieces, mounted in tiny sealed baffles that
couldn't accept such movements without developing deap-sea pressures even
if such air movemnt were possible from those little speakers, can still
somehow produce good bass. All kinds of non-purist tricks must be used.
Actually, some of those tricks should be used even by the purists. The mani
one being panning and balance set by delay and not only by varing the
signal level. Try it with a flanger effect, set the feedback to zero,
modulation off, and adjust the sub-millisecond delays slowly to afect an
already-panned signal. This simulates the tiny delay our heads cause to
incoming sounds (That's what the 'head related transfer functions' thing is
about, btw). This, combined with subtle low-pass filtering, can make a
signal pan well beyond the speakers.
There are several reasons why such tricks are not used in purist hi-fi:
1. Expense. Until recently, it's been prohibitive.
2. Subjectivity. The delay needed to make a degree of panning depends on
ear and head shape.
3. The effect has been used as a gimmick, and has got a bad reputation in a
purist context.
If I were designing a balance control for hi-fi based on this I'd have a
main balance control that had a couple of smaller controls beside it, one
for filter, one for delay. To set it up, pan main hard left, then adjust
delay for making the sound go to best extreme for proper location left for
whoever is going to listen. Check it again on the right, then use the main,
then adjust the filter till it feels right. It's more complex than the
usual set of controls, but not much. It's no good setting up digital
poresets, a thing like that has to be as hands-on as the controls we've got
used to over decades.
Not sure whether the bass enhancement thing counts so well for hi-fi use
though. It might in active speakers though, where the aim is to match the
power gain stage with the transducer to air coupling. When you have that
much control over the output device, it probably can get hi-fi results for
a small bookshelf system.
| |
| Lostgallifreyan 2006-05-12, 5:21 am |
| An extra point:
If you can try that flanger experiment, set the amplitude on each channel
the same.
What's amazing about this, is the delay part of the panned signal can place
the location further left without level difference than the level
difference can do without the delay, even when the level is full in one
channel and ABSENT in the other!
That should be enough to convince you. But you'll have to do it. Don't just
take my word for it.
| |
|
| On Fri, 12 May 2006 07:51:18 GMT, Lostgallifreyan
<no-one@nowhere.net> wrote:
>An extra point:
>If you can try that flanger experiment, set the amplitude on each channel
>the same.
>What's amazing about this, is the delay part of the panned signal can place
>the location further left without level difference than the level
>difference can do without the delay, even when the level is full in one
>channel and ABSENT in the other!
>
>That should be enough to convince you. But you'll have to do it. Don't just
>take my word for it.
I'll take your word for it, because I will always be a
purist and never wish for any digital REprocessing of the
signal.
I built my own headphone/pre/power amps from scratch though,
I'm pickier than most.
| |
| Lostgallifreyan 2006-05-12, 7:21 am |
| kony <spam@spam.com> wrote in
news:m4k862hpt0ng8c8s4g5h1vhnd2prb2pcts@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 12 May 2006 07:51:18 GMT, Lostgallifreyan
> <no-one@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> I'll take your word for it, because I will always be a
> purist and never wish for any digital REprocessing of the
> signal.
>
> I built my own headphone/pre/power amps from scratch though,
> I'm pickier than most.
>
Actually I don't either. No tone controls, only gain, and two Mackie
HR828's (active near/mid-field monitors).
Where those effects really help (and where I learned about them) is in
making music. When you use the delay panning carefully you can make very
subtle stereo effects that are musically expressive, especially when using
noises, close mic'd or ambient, as a source.
The delay panning isn't that bad an idea for general use though, if you've
ever experimented with binaural stereo (a long-standing interest for many
purists) you'll have already used it. As binaural stereo hasn't taken hold
because it's too dependent on head and ear contours, it would have to have
the kind of controls I suggest to make it useful to all. Not sure how this
could be used to vary the delays in a stereo mix though, unless it be based
on splitting the signal into several narrow bands and rebuilding to get the
wavefronts aligned. There is a tool that does this, a BBE something, used
to clarify poor phase in final mixes. That might be adapted effectively,
but I haven't tried one so I have no idea.
About lack of bass, even these Mackies don't go down to the lowest octave,
and it doesn't bother be, our hearing can enhance the fundamental without
preprocess, so long as there's enough info to start with. By definition,
missing the lowest octave means that ONLY the fundamental of those notes is
actually 'missing'. And it's only attenuated a bit.
| |
| Lostgallifreyan 2006-05-12, 7:21 am |
| Um, typo, HR424.. No such thing as HR828 as far as I know..
Also, the reason I don't use tone controls isn't beased on the idea of them
degrading the pure signal, it's purely that I get used to a sound in a
room. If I want to get the balance I don't adjust them except in the
crudest and most temporary situation. In stead I play some things I know
really well, and shift things in the room if there's some horrible boom in
a corner or something.
| |
| Lostgallifreyan 2006-05-12, 7:21 am |
| HR824.
Finally...
(Far too used to forums with edit buttons)
| |
| Jan Panteltje 2006-05-12, 7:21 am |
| On a sunny day (Fri, 12 May 2006 05:10:23 -0400) it happened kony
<spam@spam.com> wrote in <m4k862hpt0ng8c8s4g5h1vhnd2prb2pcts@4ax.com>:
>I built my own headphone
What system, i am curious, electrostatic, dynamic, dynamic wit ha coild in teh membrane?
Or piezzo?
I once build a smal ldynamic one.... when you find you need permanent magnet bias...
Also did some experimenting with piezzo.
Is yours betetr what you can buy commercially? (mine was not).
/pre/power amps from scratch though,
Yes done that too.
>I'm pickier than most.
Na I am not, listening on PC speakers to my music now:-)
| |
| Boris Mohar 2006-05-12, 8:21 am |
| On Thu, 11 May 2006 17:11:25 GMT, VWWall <vwall@DEADearthlink.net> wrote:
>CBFalconer wrote:
>
>
>I built a "Klipschorn" from drawings one of my fellow engineers at Bell
>Labs drew up in 1950. With the popularity of stereo, it was hard to
>find a room with corners in the right place, but it made a wondrous
>sound! :-)
>
> From my post of 5/6/06 "Speaker impedance":
>
>".... I recall talking to Paul Klipsch, the inventor of the "Klipsch
>horn". This was a speaker enclosure about six feet tall and four feet
>wide that sat in the corner of a room and used the corner walls and
>floor as an extension of the horn. Paul contended that there was no
>such thing as a "small" low frequency wave."
>
>I've often wondered what he might think of the speakers they're now
>offering under his name!
>
>Virg Wall, P.E.
Dis someone mention horn? "Dig" these (scroll down)
http://www.royaldevice.com/custom.htm
Regards,
Boris Mohar
Got Knock? - see:
Viatrack Printed Circuit Designs (among other things) http://www.viatrack.ca
void _-void-_ in the obvious place
| |
| John Gilmer 2006-05-12, 10:21 am |
|
that[color=darkred]
> No. It is easy. Doing it so it will last is the hard part.
Like the joke I remember from my long ago military training:
The instructor would tell the class that a piece of equipment was "air
dropable." The more experienced instructors would anticipate the sea of
raised hands and add in: "More than once!"
| |
| CBFalconer 2006-05-12, 12:21 pm |
| Lostgallifreyan wrote:
>
> HR824.
> Finally...
> (Far too used to forums with edit buttons)
Apparently you have connected to another of those flawed interfaces
to usenet. This is not a forum. Be aware that a complete world
awaits you when you install a newsreader and connect to your ISPs
newsserver. I suggest you try Thunderbird, from mozilla.org.
Totally free, and available for many systems, including Windoze,
Mac, Unix/Linux, etc.
--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>
Also see <http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/>
| |
| Lostgallifreyan 2006-05-12, 1:21 pm |
| CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:4464963D.2B61BD79@yahoo.com:
> Lostgallifreyan wrote:
>
> Apparently you have connected to another of those flawed interfaces
> to usenet. This is not a forum. Be aware that a complete world
> awaits you when you install a newsreader and connect to your ISPs
> newsserver. I suggest you try Thunderbird, from mozilla.org.
> Totally free, and available for many systems, including Windoze,
> Mac, Unix/Linux, etc.
>
I'm using X-News, a Windows client. I'm not entirely missing the point.
It's just that I get careless with typing at times, trying to keep up with
a thought, and I miss typos and can't edit after posting. It used not to be
a problem but I think my sight might slowly be failing.
I know it's technically possible for usenet to allow deletions, and
possibly edits, but I think most systems don't allow it because it's easily
abused.
I'll look at Thunderbird though, as X-News has some ghastly OS-crashing
habits. Not that Firefox isn't free of GUI-affecting memory leaks, so
Thunderbird might not be a guaranteed improvement over X-News if it uses
common code with Firefox.
All of which is far too much off-topic info, but it might help people avoid
making assumptions. Sorry, hard to resist that one..
| |
| VWWall 2006-05-12, 2:21 pm |
| Boris Mohar wrote:
> On Thu, 11 May 2006 17:11:25 GMT, VWWall <vwall@DEADearthlink.net> wrote:
[color=darkred]
> Dis someone mention horn? "Dig" these (scroll down)
>
> http://www.royaldevice.com/custom.htm
That's really carrying things to an extreme! The one I built did use
two four by eight foot sheets of 3/4 inch plywood, but no concrete! :-)
I noticed the power amp uses transformers. At one time the "hi-fi
purests" claimed iron core devices distorted the waveforms. Transformer
less designs were all the rage, neglecting the fact that the signal had
probably been through many transformers before it reached the final
listener.
Virg Wall, P.E.
| |
| VWWall 2006-05-12, 2:21 pm |
| Lostgallifreyan wrote:
> An extra point:
> If you can try that flanger experiment, set the amplitude on each channel
> the same.
> What's amazing about this, is the delay part of the panned signal can place
> the location further left without level difference than the level
> difference can do without the delay, even when the level is full in one
> channel and ABSENT in the other!
My MSI motherboard has a Realtec AC97 six channel sound system. There
is a built in demo which uses delay plus volume to "move" a sound
source. Now that everything has gone digital it's much easier to
implement this sort of thing. I can recall experimenting with screen
door springs with phono pick-ups attached, to simulate audio delay.
Made some interesting sounds, but hardly hi-fi!
Virg Wall, P.E.
| |
|
| On Fri, 12 May 2006 10:00:37 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On a sunny day (Fri, 12 May 2006 05:10:23 -0400) it happened kony
><spam@spam.com> wrote in <m4k862hpt0ng8c8s4g5h1vhnd2prb2pcts@4ax.com>:
>
>
>What system, i am curious, electrostatic, dynamic, dynamic wit ha coild in teh membrane?
>Or piezzo?
>I once build a smal ldynamic one.... when you find you need permanent magnet bias...
>Also did some experimenting with piezzo.
>
>Is yours betetr what you can buy commercially? (mine was not).
>
no i meant headamp. I usually listen to Sennheisers or
Grados.
| |
| Jan Panteltje 2006-05-12, 5:21 pm |
| On a sunny day (Fri, 12 May 2006 15:07:55 -0400) it happened kony
<spam@spam.com> wrote in <16n9625gvs480cj3q29tull4845dqgu4id@4ax.com>:
>On Fri, 12 May 2006 10:00:37 GMT, Jan Panteltje
><pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>no i meant headamp. I usually listen to Sennheisers or
>Grados.
OK, I had a Senheiser too.
Was very good.
| |
| Lostgallifreyan 2006-05-12, 5:21 pm |
| VWWall <vwall@DEADearthlink.net> wrote in
news:7b39g.1573$y4.333@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> Lostgallifreyan wrote:
>
> My MSI motherboard has a Realtec AC97 six channel sound system. There
> is a built in demo which uses delay plus volume to "move" a sound
> source. Now that everything has gone digital it's much easier to
> implement this sort of thing. I can recall experimenting with screen
> door springs with phono pick-ups attached, to simulate audio delay.
>
> Made some interesting sounds, but hardly hi-fi!
>
> Virg Wall, P.E.
>
Nor is 2-channel stereo. But it's a convention we've come to accept.
Actually, many sounds are processed with delay panning to set a realistic
position. WHile it's possible to overdo it, rendering the effect weird for
all but the largest ears and heads, there's nothing wrong with doing it in
moderation, it just means that those with largest ears and heads will hear
it slightly narrower field than most.
The one thing that gets to me about the purist thing is that I've seen
people worry about silver speaker cables, or the tiniest differences in an
MP3 encoding process, and various other things, when the differences in the
musicl process, or the final mix, or even a bit of EQ on the stereo mix,
all make far more bold changes to the sound. If it sounds good, people will
accept is hi-fi, so long as they don't see that crude assembly of signals
at their end.
If you want a great take on that whole thing, listen to a song by Micheal
Flanders and Donald Swann. > It's called 'A Song Of Reproduction'. It
encourages a healthy wariness of too much narrow refinement. The reason why
such things as big sounds out of tiny speakers are amazing people right now
is that it's taken the computer industry to shift people's perceptions far
enough and fast enough to make it possible to try things which have
actually been commercially and technically possible for decades. It's the
limited concept of what is 'hi-fi' that has had to break down first.
People can agrue till death about how hi-fi is simple, only to reproduce
the original sound, but it can't. No two-channel system can. Which is the
point, The only way out of a circular argument is to accept new ideas into
'hi-fi'.
| |
|
| On Fri, 12 May 2006 20:16:31 GMT, Lostgallifreyan
<no-one@nowhere.net> wrote:
>The one thing that gets to me about the purist thing is that I've seen
>people worry about silver speaker cables, or the tiniest differences in an
>MP3 encoding process, and various other things, when the differences in the
>musicl process, or the final mix, or even a bit of EQ on the stereo mix,
>all make far more bold changes to the sound. If it sounds good, people will
>accept is hi-fi, so long as they don't see that crude assembly of signals
>at their end.
The answer is easy, the goal is not "bold changes", it's
accurate reproduction. Some will psychologically err when
they assume their further tweaking of audio cables sounds
better without an ABX test but even that isn't valid-
because multiple changes below a threshold of discrimination
(taken alone) can sum to a perceivable difference.
Audio is so subjective though, it's fairly impossible to
generalize that "people will accept is hi-fi" when talking
about all the possible variations. Even a crude $3 AM radio
sounds pretty good compared to silence but set it next to
something better... so ignorance can be bliss, the road to
perfect sound is long and winding.
>
>If you want a great take on that whole thing, listen to a song by Micheal
>Flanders and Donald Swann. > It's called 'A Song Of Reproduction'. It
>encourages a healthy wariness of too much narrow refinement. The reason why
>such things as big sounds out of tiny speakers are amazing people right now
>is that it's taken the computer industry to shift people's perceptions far
>enough and fast enough to make it possible to try things which have
>actually been commercially and technically possible for decades. It's the
>limited concept of what is 'hi-fi' that has had to break down first.
>
>People can agrue till death about how hi-fi is simple, only to reproduce
>the original sound, but it can't. No two-channel system can. Which is the
>point, The only way out of a circular argument is to accept new ideas into
>'hi-fi'.
Those who do the most critical listening seem to disagree
and prefer 2 good channels over digitally mutilated sound.
There's nothing wrong with digital at all, to preserve, not
change the sound.
| |
| VWWall 2006-05-12, 7:21 pm |
| Lostgallifreyan wrote:
> The one thing that gets to me about the purist thing is that I've seen
> people worry about silver speaker cables, or the tiniest differences in an
> MP3 encoding process, and various other things, when the differences in the
> musicl process, or the final mix, or even a bit of EQ on the stereo mix,
> all make far more bold changes to the sound. If it sounds good, people will
> accept is hi-fi, so long as they don't see that crude assembly of signals
> at their end.
A "musical" instrument or human throat, (non -linear), produces acoustic
air pressure variations, which are shaped by the environment, (recording
studio or auditorium). These are partially sampled by a non-linear
microphone, and converted to an electrical signal which is then
amplified millions of times by an almost linear device. This electrical
signal is applied to another non-linear device, (speaker), where a
second acoustic air pressure variation is created. This is modified by
the environment, (listening room or auditorium), and partially sampled
by the most non-linear device of all, the human ear.
After all this, the nerve "signals" from the ear are interrupted by the
device about which we know the least, the human brain.
Without the latter there would not be tens of "audio magazines",
hundreds of audio device manufacturers, and the makers of "monster
cables" and gold plated connectors would go out of business!
> People can agrue till death about how hi-fi is simple, only to reproduce
> the original sound, but it can't. No two-channel system can. Which is the
> point, The only way out of a circular argument is to accept new ideas into
> 'hi-fi'.
The best any system can do is to "please" the brain. Since pleasure is
highly subjective, no two people will hear exactly the same thing.
Perhaps we need to concentrate more on the message and less on the medium.
Virg Wall, P.E.
| |
| Lostgallifreyan 2006-05-12, 7:21 pm |
| kony <spam@spam.com> wrote in
news:1bu962duded3gk2fhpm2rbh1mns9bn6ife@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 12 May 2006 20:16:31 GMT, Lostgallifreyan
> <no-one@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> The answer is easy, the goal is not "bold changes", it's
> accurate reproduction. Some will psychologically err when
> they assume their further tweaking of audio cables sounds
> better without an ABX test but even that isn't valid-
> because multiple changes below a threshold of discrimination
> (taken alone) can sum to a perceivable difference.
>
> Audio is so subjective though, it's fairly impossible to
> generalize that "people will accept is hi-fi" when talking
> about all the possible variations. Even a crude $3 AM radio
> sounds pretty good compared to silence but set it next to
> something better... so ignorance can be bliss, the road to
> perfect sound is long and winding.
>
>
>
>
> Those who do the most critical listening seem to disagree
> and prefer 2 good channels over digitally mutilated sound.
> There's nothing wrong with digital at all, to preserve, not
> change the sound.
>
Go outside to hear some birds or a plane flying. Then take a pair of the
finest small-diaphragm condensor mics and record same, experimenting as
much as you like with mic placement. Listen to the result through the best
audiophile gear you can reach. Then try to figure out where the surrounding
depth, or actual spatial height went. Finally, figure out which experience
has 'fidelity'. And no, you won't need ABX testing to tell you.
Btw, saying that critical listeners all accept 2-channel stereo is probably
a bigger generalisation than any I have made. In fact, even if you stick
rigorously to the way a spatial field is set up in purist 2-channel stereo,
the logical outcome for 'fidelity' is actually to listen within a spherical
volume, itself set within an equilateral tetrahedral volume defined by four
speakers, one above the centre of an equilateral triangle. You'd have to
spend a lot more money to do that though, even than was spent by the guy
who made a brick subwoofer.
| |
| Lostgallifreyan 2006-05-12, 8:21 pm |
| VWWall <vwall@DEADearthlink.net> wrote in
news:ji79g.3662$u4.3349@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> Perhaps we need to concentrate more on the message and less on the
> medium.
>
Agreed. That's what I'm getting at. Purist forms try to work like a
scientific 'control'. That only works to show you about the reality if you
also experience the rest of it. When people channel it through a purist
reproduction system, they only hear the interpretation of an
interpretation, etc, which is that chain of audio you were describing. To
get more of tha actual experience, we need to try other ways to channel the
information to us. That is what 'fidelity' really means. There was a time
when stereo hi-fi was revolutionary. That appears to be long gone,
now turned into a refinement of craft, and no more. We will not get closer
to the message, the raw source of the event being recorded, unless we
either go there, or find new ways to bring it to us.
| |
| Boris Mohar 2006-05-12, 10:21 pm |
| On Fri, 12 May 2006 16:40:43 GMT, VWWall <vwall@DEADearthlink.net> wrote:
>Boris Mohar wrote:
>
>
>
>That's really carrying things to an extreme! The one I built did use
>two four by eight foot sheets of 3/4 inch plywood, but no concrete! :-)
>
>I noticed the power amp uses transformers. At one time the "hi-fi
>purests" claimed iron core devices distorted the waveforms. Transformer
>less designs were all the rage, neglecting the fact that the signal had
>probably been through many transformers before it reached the final
>listener.
>
>Virg Wall, P.E.
That guys approach to amplifier design is questionable.
--
Boris Mohar
| |
| CBFalconer 2006-05-13, 1:21 am |
| Boris Mohar wrote:
>
.... snip ...[color=darkred]
It's not the existance of the transformer, it's the transfer
characteristics, frequency range, clipping, etc. No transformer
works down to DC. All will clip at some level. The heart of the
XXXXXXXXon amplifier was its output transformer, which was wound to
exacting specifications, with specified core material. Even then,
it was strictly power limited to a pair of 6L6s or the equivalent.
I think 2A3s were actually used, because of their better transfer
curves. Transistors made DC coupling feasible.
--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>
Also see <http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/>
| |
| VWWall 2006-05-13, 3:21 am |
| CBFalconer wrote:
> Boris Mohar wrote:
> ... snip ...
You snipped wrongly. This was VWWall input:
>
> It's not the existance of the transformer, it's the transfer
> characteristics, frequency range, clipping, etc. No transformer
> works down to DC. All will clip at some level. The heart of the
> XXXXXXXXon amplifier was its output transformer, which was wound to
> exacting specifications, with specified core material. Even then,
> it was strictly power limited to a pair of 6L6s or the equivalent.
> I think 2A3s were actually used, because of their better transfer
> curves. Transistors made DC coupling feasible.
Speakers do react, (badly), to DC, hence the DC coupled amp had a big
capacitor in series with the speaker.
I was just pointing out one of the foibles of the "hi-fi clan". One of
the best amps I ever built used a pair of WE 300B tubes with a
transformer of course. I see these tubes are now selling for $400 each.
($900 matched pair.) I'd better check the garage--I think I still have
a pair! :-)
VWWall, P.E.
| |
|
| On Sat, 13 May 2006 05:20:49 GMT, VWWall
<vwall@DEADearthlink.net> wrote:
>CBFalconer wrote:
>
>You snipped wrongly. This was VWWall input:
>
>
>Speakers do react, (badly), to DC, hence the DC coupled amp had a big
>capacitor in series with the speaker.
>
>I was just pointing out one of the foibles of the "hi-fi clan". One of
>the best amps I ever built used a pair of WE 300B tubes with a
>transformer of course. I see these tubes are now selling for $400 each.
>($900 matched pair.) I'd better check the garage--I think I still have
>a pair! :-)
>
>VWWall, P.E.
It depends on subjective definition of hi-fi. I don't
dismiss tube fans but they are looking to color the sound
with distortion. If they like that, great, they found what
they want... but high fidelity it is not, IMO.
| |
| Lostgallifreyan 2006-05-13, 5:21 am |
| kony <spam@spam.com> wrote in
news:kd4b62hgdvbu34pv8ldnkngdogi1k0q1g3@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 13 May 2006 05:20:49 GMT, VWWall
> <vwall@DEADearthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> It depends on subjective definition of hi-fi. I don't
> dismiss tube fans but they are looking to color the sound
> with distortion. If they like that, great, they found what
> they want... but high fidelity it is not, IMO.
>
I agree there. It's a very nice sound though, and it does work for some
music that comes from times when this was the only way you could do it. The
history is short, on the scale of music making, and the accepted sound has
a lot to do with context. I'm old enough to know valve sound and young
enough to know PWM based systems as an equally formative effect on what I
think is the ideal. While PWM is still new enough to be mainly considered
for raw efficiency, not hi-fi, it's like the development of op-amps,
getting closer all the time. To me those things will become hi-fi, reducing
the gain stage to a clean magnifying window, as magical and also as prosaic
as an achromatic lens. The idea of using valve preamps, or even digital
emulations such as the technique used in Sound Forge's 'Acoustic Mirror'
will seem like a nightmare to some, but many others will use it. That way
you might play music from the 60's or 50's not only through a valve sound,
but even the valve sound of equipment of the time it was made. If people
can model components with spice modelling, and use sample rates up to 192
KHz with bit depths of 24 or more, as is happening now, the resolution will
be finer than we can perceive, and the majority of people will be calling
it hi-fi. If it brings them more ways to match a sound with the conditions
that created it, I won't be telling them they're wrong.
| |
|
| On Fri, 12 May 2006 22:12:54 GMT, Lostgallifreyan
<no-one@nowhere.net> wrote:
>Go outside to hear some birds or a plane flying. Then take a pair of the
>finest small-diaphragm condensor mics and record same, experimenting as
>much as you like with mic placement. Listen to the result through the best
>audiophile gear you can reach. Then try to figure out where the surrounding
>depth, or actual spatial height went. Finally, figure out which experience
>has 'fidelity'. And no, you won't need ABX testing to tell you.
yes, the recording and subsequent playback is not accurate.
However, what is preserved is as close as can be achieved.
Artifically trying to reinterpret what the original was,
only reduces the SNR further. Noise is not just that picked
up in a circuit, not just from bad design but now also
artificially introduced, deliberately.
>
>Btw, saying that critical listeners all accept 2-channel stereo is probably
>a bigger generalisation than any I have made.
"Accept" means that it beats the other alternatives of
artificial generation of spacialization. If there were more
than 2 tracks recorded, certainly that would be more
realistic, but without the addt'l channel information
present, trying to make it up with forethought can only
lower the true SNR.
>In fact, even if you stick
>rigorously to the way a spatial field is set up in purist 2-channel stereo,
>the logical outcome for 'fidelity' is actually to listen within a spherical
>volume, itself set within an equilateral tetrahedral volume defined by four
>speakers, one above the centre of an equilateral triangle. You'd have to
>spend a lot more money to do that though, even than was spent by the guy
>who made a brick subwoofer.
Nonsense. Fidelity always means reproducing what is present
in the recording. Not pretending to know what is missing
and readding it. If the recording is not satisfactory to
your sense of reality, it needs to be recorded differently,
not played back differently than each channel reproduced
accurately. Of course that can include speaker positioning,
but it never includes digitally manipulating the signal to
some artificial state.
| |
| Lostgallifreyan 2006-05-13, 6:21 am |
| kony <spam@spam.com> wrote in
news:a75b629rfogo6i7r3vv7rpi4liglgui08q@4ax.com:
> Artifically trying to reinterpret what the original was,
> only reduces the SNR further.
Actually that point is only true if you're trying to recover something that
is already gone beyond recovery. Consider the harmonic regeneration
possible with things like the Hyperprism 'Harmonic Exciter'. Technically
that thing makes distortion, thus has NO place in hi-fi.
That might be the end of it, but it isn't. I sometimes restore sound from
FM recordings and vinyl. I'll use FFT NR to reduce the steady background
noise by 18 dB or more, and this can also reduce the highest frequencies of
the sound I want to keep. When I use the Hyperprism tool I use it very
minimally, to rebuild some harmonics on the top of the surviving frequency
range. This spreads the background noise back up the spectrum too, but more
thinly than in the original, by far. Sure, I've absolutle butchered the
signal if you want to compare it with the original, but the original was a
faded copy of something irrecoverable, and the restored copy has a clarity
in the upper harmonics that is very good, carries the fine detail to make
it easy to hears words in low-level voices, and to easly tell the tibral
character of instruments apart, and to hear the original reverb properly
again.
Sure, I've reduced the SNR if you consider the exact waveshape and original
spectrum, but if the FFT NR and the harmonic regeneration are set up well,
the message, the real meaning for the signal, is enhanced. I've played the
results of this work to people who are very strict about the use of ABX in
testing, and who are very particular about their listening gear, and not
one has said I damaged the sound. Some have been very enthusastic about how
clean it sounds. I used to make bad mistakes in overdoing the treatment,
but I've found that it works, and the better I get it, the more likely it
is that one method works in more cases with little modification.
If you limit the notion of SNR to a purely technical expression of changes
to an original record, it's technically impossible to 'improve' it anyway,
so to me, that is a bad basis for the definition. My method has more risks
but I think it can also get real improvement.
| |
| Lostgallifreyan 2006-05-13, 6:21 am |
| kony <spam@spam.com> wrote in
news:a75b629rfogo6i7r3vv7rpi4liglgui08q@4ax.com:
> Fidelity always means reproducing what is present
> in the recording. Not pretending to know what is missing
> and readding it. If the recording is not satisfactory to
> your sense of reality, it needs to be recorded differently,
> not played back differently than each channel reproduced
> accurately. Of course that can include speaker positioning,
> but it never includes digitally manipulating the signal to
> some artificial state.
All of science is filled with assumptions and compromise. That's what
modelling reality is all about. I agree that the conditions of the
recording are what matters most, but where those cannot be recovered, what
else are you going to do? Again,. if you reduce the concept of signal and
noise to a purely mechanical basis, you are left with nothing but trying to
fight decay, there is no more creation of any kind. There is a difference
between creation to regenerate the clarity that is wanted in an old
recording that has lost it, and the creation that takes big liberties for
their own sake, but the difficulty of making the decisions is no reason to
suggest that trying to do so is invalid.
As someone said on a forum recently, "Those who say that something cannot
be done should not interupt with those who are doing it."
| |
| Alex Coleman 2006-05-13, 6:21 am |
| On 13 May 2006, Lostgallifreyan<no-one@nowhere.net> wrote:
> Actually that point is only true if you're trying to recover
> something that is already gone beyond recovery. Consider the
> harmonic regeneration possible with things like the Hyperprism
> 'Harmonic Exciter'. Technically that thing makes distortion, thus
> has NO place in hi-fi.
Is Hyperprism 'Harmonic Exciter" available for Windows?
http://www.arboretum.com/ seems to refer only to Mac OS X.
| |
| Jan Panteltje 2006-05-13, 6:21 am |
| On a sunny day (Sat, 13 May 2006 05:20:49 GMT) it happened VWWall
<vwall@DEADearthlink.net> wrote in
<R0e9g.1932$Jf.833@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>CBFalconer wrote:
>
>You snipped wrongly. This was VWWall input:
>
>
>Speakers do react, (badly), to DC, hence the DC coupled amp had a big
>capacitor in series with the speaker.
This is not correct.
For a modern single chip version 75W rms woofer driver I use:
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/amplifier/index.html
Nothing extraordinary,. very simple, drives the woofer (L+R combined)
from the PC speaker, or if 5 ch the bass.
I have mounted the speaker to the floor..... cone down...
That extra floor vibration adds to the tiny PC speakers....
As to you original remark, thsre do exist DC couple transistor amps
with output cap (and usually a boost cap to lift the driver voltage),
but only for low power stuff.
This chip I am using is a CMOS chip, and very very stable (note the
missing R+C across the output.
It is a very nice chip.
| |
| Lostgallifreyan 2006-05-13, 7:21 am |
| Alex Coleman <no@no-email.com> wrote in
news:Xns97C26794BE72771F3M4@127.0.0.1:
> On 13 May 2006, Lostgallifreyan<no-one@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>
> Is Hyperprism 'Harmonic Exciter" available for Windows?
>
> http://www.arboretum.com/ seems to refer only to Mac OS X.
>
Yes. I haven't kept up with latest versions, so I don't even know how far
they got, but the one I use is v1.55b I think. It's a 'DirectShow' plugin,
and if you can get the actual file you won't need the whole install, just
put the file where you want then register with Regsvr32.exe (which is as
easy as dragging icon for HExciter.dll onto that for Regsvr32.exe).
http://www.arboretum.com/products/plugins/hyp_main.html
Link for Windows package there. For the most part I found the Sonic Foundry
effects far better, for GUI, accuracy, bug-free handling, but HExciter.dll
is indispensible, I never found anything better than that.
If you want to experiment with the use as I described it, some starting
parameter settings would be these:
Harmonic Type Odd+Even
Quality Level Best
Harmonics % 24
Dynamics % 0
Crossover Hz 3600
Spectral Mix dB 0
That's a very minimal effect, pretty safe to use on anything, but maybe too
subtle in recordings with badly worn HF signal. I used this one for BBC
radio relays from live Proms concerts. The next thing I try if I want more
obvious effect is raising 'Harmonics %' to 32 and lowering the crossover to
3200 Hz, then listening carefully to any sounds like sustained piano or
soprano voices as those will be the first to show up audible distortions.
(Note that this might just be enhancing existing distortions that we
otherwise wouldn't notice).
| |
| Alex Coleman 2006-05-13, 3:21 pm |
| On 12 May 2006, Jan Panteltje<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On a sunny day (Fri, 12 May 2006 15:07:55 -0400) it happened kony
> <spam@spam.com> wrote in
> <16n9625gvs480cj3q29tull4845dqgu4id@4ax.com>:
>
>
> OK, I had a Senheiser too.
> Was very good.
>
Me too. Senns seem to have maintained quality in their range with
only a few duff models.
| |
| Michael C 2006-05-15, 7:21 am |
| "Joerg" <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message
news:Yqq8g.70460
> Not the ones out here in California, they can sing rather pretty songs.
> And loud.
The range is quite small though and generally quite high pitch which is much
easier to produce (which is why tweeters are much smaller than woofers
obviously)
>
> Regards, Joerg
>
> http://www.analogconsultants.com
| |
|
| Hello Michael,
>
> The range is quite small though and generally quite high pitch which is much
> easier to produce (which is why tweeters are much smaller than woofers
> obviously)
>
Their pitch is high but the range can be surprising. Another small
animal that can perform in very low pitch and be heard for 1/4 mile is
the bullfrog. They are smaller than a fist but rather loud.
Once when the humming birds out here had one of their usual air combat
exercises I had to go inside to continue a phone conversation. These
tiny birds weigh around five grams.
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com
| |
| Jan Panteltje 2006-05-17, 10:21 am |
| On a sunny day (Tue, 16 May 2006 23:51:49 GMT) it happened Joerg
<notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in
<pAtag.71717$_S7.56532@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>:
>Once when the humming birds out here had one of their usual air combat
>exercises I had to go inside to continue a phone conversation. These
>tiny birds weigh around five grams.
>
>Regards, Joerg
Yup, only a few kg of plutonium can be heard for 150 miles.
Sorry could not resist.
|
|
|
|
|