Hi how it's even conceivable that a higher distortion driver sounds better than a lower distortion driverAlso worth noting that for example AllenB used nuance like "almost doesn't matter" and "not significant", so context is important again like in many discussions.
Key is to know what is more significant than something else. If one is trying to gobble up great sounding system there is lots of things to consider before even choosing drivers. Obviously "low distortion" is a goal for good system, but there are many others. When the system design seems nice then buy best drivers one can afford that fit the bill, simple as that, fuzz around drivers seem silly to me.
I mean, amount of distortion is irrelevant as long as its not the main turd, if room sound is bad then its not distortion fault but the system doesn't fit the room, or acoustic treatment is needed, which is more distracting? Buy better drivers to fix distortion but did the sound get any better because the worst offender is still there? Upgrade turntable, expensive power cord and so on, whats the problem? By all means buy best drivers. Ideal drivers don't exists so just use best you can have hands on for any speaker design, perhaps easiest thing in the world. But, there is only so much headroom one can get by swapping better same size driver, right? Back to design table most of the time.
One can use ideal drivers to come up with good system design and that probably means the system has enough SPL capability that distortion is again, irrelevant with most real driver options.
I think this is the case with Geddes message, as long as the sound is good in room, system that addresses statistically more audible issues like room modes, directivity, not too many crossovers to ruin step response. A system design that solved these statistically most important problems got so big it naturally has very low distortion so that it isn't very audible in home use. So, important to read what is his context, when system is made to fix the most audible issues distortion got fixed as well.
I think only thing Geddes says is that THD does not correlate perceived sound quality, which is the reason there is better metric that takes account proportion of each harmonic. If someone is concerned about distortion in their systems its not much of a challenge to buy few different drivers and test audibility. If one sounds better than the other then why not. It might be better room suiting alignment, better frequency response with given crossover and so on, not necessarily amount of distortion, that makes it sound better. Inverse could happen, if some cheap driver with poor distortion spec sounds better than some more expensive one its probably just frequency response difference, or bad system design. EQ them equal and check again if there is audible difference. Sure, when everything is fine enough also distortion gets it's show in spotlight, just buy better driver, or change the system design for better if it wasn't enough.
Most of you know all this so its preaching to choirDesign your system well, and use best drivers that fit the bill.
This kind of reasoning is not scientific
Only in audio i hear this kind of statements
And Imho a driver selection should be possible only by reading the datasheet
Problem is that often datasheets are lacking important data like spectral decay and distortion
Moreover and i understand this the way a driver is used can have a big impact on its performance
Some designers have been able to exalt average and also cheap drivers using them in a smart way
Horn loading is an example so fascinating that i intend to study more in depth
Especially now that i have realized that a horn loaded tweeter can go lower in frequency
Therefore I could get away with just 2 ways instead of 3
Just to say that i hate omniQuick thought experiment for fun.
Lets take from literature that speaker directivity is important for good stereo playback system in hifi application. What if we had ideal drivers, could we achieve for example omni response 20-20kHz to get perhaps ideal directivity? To get ~omni around 20kHz transducer (and construct) size would need to be about half of wavelength or so, one wavelength is 1.7cm give or take, sub 1cm. Lets just use traditional 1" for simple calculations, lets consider it omni enough.
Our ideal 1" transducer is capable of anything without electro-mechanical reality destroying performance. Lets calculate if we could have full bandwidth 20Hz - 20kHz from it. To maintain flat frequency response (simplified direct radiator example) volume displacement needs to quadruple every octave down. From 20k to 10k, to 5k, to 2.5k to 1.25k to 640, to 320, to 160Hz, 80Hz, 40Hz, 20Hz, roughly ten octaves. Quadruple length of one ten times is 1048576, so if 20kHz makes 0.01mm excursion for some SPL reaching same SPL at 20Hz would make it 0.01 * 1048576 = 10485mm excursion, so about 1048cm, or 10 meters, better wear goggles or cut down from the requirements somehow.
Revisit, system capability for 100dB SPL at 40Hz? sounds reasonable home hifi goal. Using table here https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/volume-displacement-for-spl-chart.5668/post-55869 says about 200cm3 volume displacement does it. 1" radius disk has about ~5cm2 of surface area for easy calculation, so to get 200cm3 / 5cm2 = 40cm p-p excursion. Much more reasonable than 10meters, but this is about twenty times of wavelength at 20Hz, and more than wl at 1kHz, would probably sound quite wobbly and have all sorts of combfilter happening to every direction at high frequencies. IMD?
See, still, even if we had ideal drivers from outer space our systems wouldn't be much better than what they are simply because sound wavelength varies quite wild and its all back to system design.
I don't understand why people are so in love with them
Their placement in the room is a nightmare
I have been exposed to Mbl speakers The clarity was out of this world
But it was impossible to locate instruments and the singer in space
The sound was like out of phase coming from everywhere
Very confusing
I like razor sharp sound image
For sure, bias will make the latest tweak sound better no matter if it was better or worse or neutral. Or, usually small amount of distortion makes something sound louder, which immediately is recognized better by brain. Tube amps, technically quite bad with high THD number, still preferable to some. So, distortion is just arbitrary thing in sense that sometimes it sounds bad, sometimes it sounds good, usually people just don't notice it, even quite high numbers. Obviously, when speaker is farting out its easy to recognize.
Omni was just an example. Whats your coverage for speakers, and why? Whats the context, whats the environment and application? Point was to note that distortion got nothing to do with coverage (directly) so that if you select drivers by their distortion spec and then start to wonder about coverage angle and other system level stuff, what do you do? Stick with the driver and compromise system, or willing to change the driver to another size for example?
Anyway, point is that system design first, then buy use drivers that fit the bill. You might notice at this point the driver choice is easy.
Omni was just an example. Whats your coverage for speakers, and why? Whats the context, whats the environment and application? Point was to note that distortion got nothing to do with coverage (directly) so that if you select drivers by their distortion spec and then start to wonder about coverage angle and other system level stuff, what do you do? Stick with the driver and compromise system, or willing to change the driver to another size for example?
Anyway, point is that system design first, then buy use drivers that fit the bill. You might notice at this point the driver choice is easy.
Hi i am not so sure that jbl speakers quality has dropped very much
A friend of mine with good ears listened to a pair of jbl 4367 and was impressed
I am also impressed by the 17keuro needed to buy a pair
Last edited:
Maybe One thing is sure You will never see omni in a recording studio NeverFor sure, bias will make the latest tweak sound better no matter if it was better or worse or neutral. Or, usually small amount of distortion makes something sound louder, which immediately is recognized better by brain. Tube amps, technically quite bad with high THD number, still preferable to some. So, distortion is just arbitrary thing in sense that sometimes it sounds bad, sometimes it sounds good, usually people just don't notice it, even quite high numbers. Obviously, when speaker is farting out its easy to recognize.
Omni was just an example. Whats your coverage for speakers, and why? Whats the context, whats the environment and application? Point was to note that distortion got nothing to do with coverage (directly) so that if you select drivers by their distortion spec and then start to wonder about coverage angle and other system level stuff, what do you do? Stick with the driver and compromise system, or willing to change the driver to another size for example?
Anyway, point is that system design first, then buy use drivers that fit the bill. You might notice at this point the driver choice is easy.
I guess for some reasons
I am mad for 3d soundstage. Omni send signals at 360 degree causing many out of phase reflections They are confusion generators
I wonder how many people here listen from omni
The people who speak highly of them don't own them very often
Yeah, because omni is very tough to realize on high frequencies, almost a dream Also on near field application in a studio the off-axis response is less important, as direct sound is proportionally much louder than any reflections.
I haven't considered omni for similar reasons as you, but if you think small bookshelf speakers they are almost omni, for example. Or, if one takes note from literature and forums that DI and power responses should be smooth, then omni is one topology that satisfies this. Its perhaps related to some psychoacoustic phenomena, perhaps brain is able to filter out the early reflections better when they are exact copies of direct sound.
This is at heart of loudspeaker system design, since we don't have ideal transducers and even if we had wavelength varies so much we'd still need multiple sized transducers to make complete 20-20kHz bandwidth system. Also we (many) live in small rooms and listen there, its very important to understand how brain perceives sound and then exploit it so that our systems be designed to push compromises from important things to less important things. If its happens to be so that brain filters out omni speaker first reflections, then it might be just the best thing. Probably depends on room acoustics, positioning and all though.
Another, its almost always benefitical to do acoustic treatment for the room and the more there is flexibility there the less the loudspeaker directivity matters.
The end goal is, tada, good perceived sound, right? what ever that is. For some it might be something else than for others so, everyone needs to listen stuff in their homes and application to be able to navigate towards better sound. Perhaps some like the omni.
Also on near field application in a studio the off-axis response is less important, as direct sound is proportionally much louder than any reflections.I haven't considered omni for similar reasons as you, but if you think small bookshelf speakers they are almost omni, for example. Or, if one takes note from literature and forums that DI and power responses should be smooth, then omni is one topology that satisfies this. Its perhaps related to some psychoacoustic phenomena, perhaps brain is able to filter out the early reflections better when they are exact copies of direct sound.
This is at heart of loudspeaker system design, since we don't have ideal transducers and even if we had wavelength varies so much we'd still need multiple sized transducers to make complete 20-20kHz bandwidth system. Also we (many) live in small rooms and listen there, its very important to understand how brain perceives sound and then exploit it so that our systems be designed to push compromises from important things to less important things. If its happens to be so that brain filters out omni speaker first reflections, then it might be just the best thing. Probably depends on room acoustics, positioning and all though.
Another, its almost always benefitical to do acoustic treatment for the room and the more there is flexibility there the less the loudspeaker directivity matters.
The end goal is, tada, good perceived sound, right? what ever that is. For some it might be something else than for others so, everyone needs to listen stuff in their homes and application to be able to navigate towards better sound. Perhaps some like the omni.
Last edited:
Could you please elaborate about the astronomical differences? You mean frequency response dispersion distortion spectral decay?
I am asking sincerely
I would be surprised that a driver costing 133 times more had similar performance of a much cheaper driver
But I would like to understand that astronomical
I am quite sure that very decent compression drivers can be made cheaply
But i agree that precision components cannot come cheap
Very interesting thank you I just notice that more and more studio monitors use lenses even very cheap onesYeah, because omni is very tough to realize on high frequencies, almost a dream
I haven't considered omni for similar reasons as you, but if you think small bookshelf speakers they are almost omni, for example. Or, if one takes note from literature and forums that DI and power responses should be smooth, then omni is one topology that satisfies this. Its perhaps related to some psychoacoustic phenomena, perhaps brain is able to filter out the early reflections better when they are exact copies of direct sound.
This is at heart of loudspeaker system design, since we don't have ideal transducers and even if we had wavelength varies so much we'd still need multiple sized transducers to make complete 20-20kHz bandwidth system. Also we (many) live in small rooms and listen there, its very important to understand how brain perceives sound and then exploit it so that our systems be designed to push compromises from important things to less important things. If its happens to be so that brain filters out omni speaker first reflections, then it might be just the best thing. Probably depends on room acoustics, positioning and all though.
Another, its almost always benefitical to do acoustic treatment for the room and the more there is flexibility there the less the loudspeaker directivity matters.
The end goal is, tada, good perceived sound, right? what ever that is. For some it might be something else than for others so, everyone needs to listen stuff in their homes to be able to navigate towards better sound. Perhaps some like the omni.
Not so hifi speakers Considering the acoustic of a normal domestic room i think that limited dispersion is a very good thing to avoid reflections from side walls and ceiling
Yes that is true and relevant thinking, but it depends on what the directivity actually is and what the speaker positioning and angel is and where the listening position is, furnishing and other acoustics related things, dimensions of the environment and psychoacoustics how much anything matters to perceived sound quality.
Hence I call it "loudspeaker system" for some "application". For example I have quite high DI system and the image is nice and defined few meters away but I lack envelopment/spaciousness because its quite a big room, side walls are far away and irregular. Also the image suffers if sitting 3meters away on a sofa, perhaps due to height of the room or something, perhaps flutter echo between front and back wall, or direct/reverberant sound ratio goes over some transition. I can get envelopment if I go closer to speakers so that they are further side of me, but then the image goes unnaturally wide and its not practical listening position. Its family living room so the speakers need to be close to wall to conserve space and I'd like to hear best sound on the sofa. So my application is this, perhaps 3m listening triangle, speakers near wall, and task is how to get nice sharp natural sized image to extend to the sofa AND nice envelopment.
Perhaps I'd need wide horizontal coverage and narrow vertical coverage system? Perhaps I'd be better off with omni, or if not omni wider response? Perhaps I need even narrower coverage system to extend the sharp image to sofa, and then just add another pair of speakers to provide the envelopment/spaciousness. There is also dip around 30Hz on the sofa, because its middle of the room or so, so I'd need to improve low frequency part of the loudspeaker system, in addition to the image / envelopment related stuff.
You have also some kind of application for your system to design for, perhaps something else than mine so perhaps different system works for you than for me. End result being similar, good perceived sound quality.
And none of this pondering concerns any drivers
Hence I call it "loudspeaker system" for some "application". For example I have quite high DI system and the image is nice and defined few meters away but I lack envelopment/spaciousness because its quite a big room, side walls are far away and irregular. Also the image suffers if sitting 3meters away on a sofa, perhaps due to height of the room or something, perhaps flutter echo between front and back wall, or direct/reverberant sound ratio goes over some transition. I can get envelopment if I go closer to speakers so that they are further side of me, but then the image goes unnaturally wide and its not practical listening position. Its family living room so the speakers need to be close to wall to conserve space and I'd like to hear best sound on the sofa. So my application is this, perhaps 3m listening triangle, speakers near wall, and task is how to get nice sharp natural sized image to extend to the sofa AND nice envelopment.
Perhaps I'd need wide horizontal coverage and narrow vertical coverage system? Perhaps I'd be better off with omni, or if not omni wider response? Perhaps I need even narrower coverage system to extend the sharp image to sofa, and then just add another pair of speakers to provide the envelopment/spaciousness. There is also dip around 30Hz on the sofa, because its middle of the room or so, so I'd need to improve low frequency part of the loudspeaker system, in addition to the image / envelopment related stuff.
You have also some kind of application for your system to design for, perhaps something else than mine so perhaps different system works for you than for me. End result being similar, good perceived sound quality.
And none of this pondering concerns any drivers
Last edited:
Yes you are right small bookshelf speakers act as omni and i think that this is a limitYeah, because omni is very tough to realize on high frequencies, almost a dream
I haven't considered omni for similar reasons as you, but if you think small bookshelf speakers they are almost omni, for example. Or, if one takes note from literature and forums that DI and power responses should be smooth, then omni is one topology that satisfies this. Its perhaps related to some psychoacoustic phenomena, perhaps brain is able to filter out the early reflections better when they are exact copies of direct sound.
This is at heart of loudspeaker system design, since we don't have ideal transducers and even if we had wavelength varies so much we'd still need multiple sized transducers to make complete 20-20kHz bandwidth system. Also we (many) live in small rooms and listen there, its very important to understand how brain perceives sound and then exploit it so that our systems be designed to push compromises from important things to less important things. If its happens to be so that brain filters out omni speaker first reflections, then it might be just the best thing. Probably depends on room acoustics, positioning and all though.
Another, its almost always benefitical to do acoustic treatment for the room and the more there is flexibility there the less the loudspeaker directivity matters.
The end goal is, tada, good perceived sound, right? what ever that is. For some it might be something else than for others so, everyone needs to listen stuff in their homes and application to be able to navigate towards better sound. Perhaps some like the omni.
I like very much the use of felts around mid and high units to narrow down h and v dispersion
Many designers have use this trick with a positive effect in terms of 3d soundstage rendering
I haven't tried felt because to me it doesn't seem to be good solution. Thinking wavelength and how it interacts with objects, change in acoustic impedance, its clear that felt mostly adds reflections and diffraction. While there is some reduction of sound (absorption) and some effect on directivity due to these phenomena, the effects are probably narrow band, comb filter type stuff varying with direction. Perhaps it is positive effect on perceived sound? For now I think it is not, how ever, and would consider it mostly as marketing talk.
Its possible to use big felt panel to narrow coverage, but big baffle does the same. Problem with big panels is that they would need equally big (huge) roundovers to keep edge diffraction at bay. Perhaps felt is good, easier to bend than wood for example.
One could use waveguide istead, with good edge termination. Waveguide could be made from felt as well, I guess. A good waveguide seems reasonable solution, not much trade-offs, other than the directivity might be more or less wrong, for given application. Luckily directivity is adjustable for quite wide range.
Its possible to use big felt panel to narrow coverage, but big baffle does the same. Problem with big panels is that they would need equally big (huge) roundovers to keep edge diffraction at bay. Perhaps felt is good, easier to bend than wood for example.
One could use waveguide istead, with good edge termination. Waveguide could be made from felt as well, I guess. A good waveguide seems reasonable solution, not much trade-offs, other than the directivity might be more or less wrong, for given application. Luckily directivity is adjustable for quite wide range.
Last edited:
Thanks very interestingYes that is true and relevant thinking, but it depends on what the directivity actually is and what the speaker positioning and angel is and where the listening position is, furnishing and other acoustics related things, dimensions of the environment and psychoacoustics how much anything matters to perceived sound quality.
Hence I call it "loudspeaker system" for some "application". For example I have quite high DI system and the image is nice and defined few meters away but I lack envelopment/spaciousness because its quite a big room, side walls are far away and irregular. Also the image suffers if sitting 3meters away on a sofa, perhaps due to height of the room or something, perhaps flutter echo between front and back wall, or direct/reverberant sound ratio goes over some transition. I can get envelopment if I go closer to speakers so that they are further side of me, but then the image goes unnaturally wide and its not practical listening position. Its family living room so the speakers need to be close to wall to conserve space and I'd like to hear best sound on the sofa. So my application is this, perhaps 3m listening triangle, speakers near wall, and task is how to get nice sharp natural sized image to extend to the sofa AND nice envelopment.
Perhaps I'd need wide horizontal coverage and narrow vertical coverage system? Perhaps I'd be better off with omni, or if not omni wider response? Perhaps I need even narrower coverage system to extend the sharp image to sofa, and then just add another pair of speakers to provide the envelopment/spaciousness. There is also dip around 30Hz on the sofa, because its middle of the room or so, so I'd need to improve low frequency part of the loudspeaker system, in addition to the image / envelopment related stuff.
You have also some kind of application for your system to design for, perhaps something else than mine so perhaps different system works for you than for me. End result being similar, good perceived sound quality.
And none of this pondering concerns any drivers
I would like to mention an experience of mine
A friend had on a loan a pair of Tannoy Eaton 10" dual concentric
I was listening completely out of axis and was quite puzzled by the sound
Then he told me to sit down perfectly on axis with the speakers
Wow. What a great sound and also soundstage
I was very near field
There were things that still not convinced me like cabinet built
And also the crossing of the two drivers
I am not that happy at the idea of treating the walls in my room
So i am looking for a narrow dispersion even if this limits the sweet spot size
https://images.app.goo.gl/vQP6ckT8Lxq1QhT8A
https://images.app.goo.gl/hXQmwVLhPfZ9Aawu7
https://images.app.goo.gl/EygtT9gibaGxVeuW6
Last edited:
Yeah when the response varies with direction, like diffraction makes it to, then there is only one axis where sound is "good" while other axis are not. When there is no diffraction (or very little), and directivity is smooth so that tweeter does not beam too much and crossover regions work nicely then the sound is good to many axis, hopefully at least on the listening window catering for whole three person sofa is within say 1db. Still, best sweetspot is quite narrow with two speaker stereo as both ears hear sound from both speakers and path length difference makes combilter which is audible there is still quite narrow main sweet spot. But, the sound is still pretty much similar through out the room.
If you have dedicated listening room where you can position speakers and yourself optimally and listen alone then it also doesn't matter too much what the directivity is, bring speakers close enough and point their best axis to ears.
If you have dedicated listening room where you can position speakers and yourself optimally and listen alone then it also doesn't matter too much what the directivity is, bring speakers close enough and point their best axis to ears.
I have a question Is it easier to place in a room a omni or a speaker with narrow dispersion?
I spent my life always looking for shortcuts that are also the fastest and most efficient way to get to a destination
Omni radiating speaker can sound decent with traditional produced studio recordings which don't contain actual live in room acoustics contained in live recordings. The added fluff of euphoria can be pleasing to some ears. I'm however not one of those fans who appreciate that sort of sound.
That being said, omni radiating speakers never work in the practical or theoretical world of live recording, as they add something not present when the recording was made to begin with. Our ears hear directional sound and this is factored into a live recording if its done correctly to capture the live performance in a way it was taking place in the actual environment it was occurring, including all of the spatial cues coming from the original location's room's reflections.
This is often why a binaural micing technique or something mimicking it is used to record the live event ie Neumann dummy head, Jecklin disc, Bluemlein etc. If you reproduce these types of recordings through onmi radiating speakers, it won't sound correct and all spatial cues will be smeared by the resulting added room reflections. When a typical pair of directional (narrow dispersion pattern) radiating speakers is used to play back the live recording, the stereo separation improves and you can hear the sound closer to the way it was originally recorded, sort of like listening to a big pair of headphones (albeit with extra crossfeed).
That being said, omni radiating speakers never work in the practical or theoretical world of live recording, as they add something not present when the recording was made to begin with. Our ears hear directional sound and this is factored into a live recording if its done correctly to capture the live performance in a way it was taking place in the actual environment it was occurring, including all of the spatial cues coming from the original location's room's reflections.
This is often why a binaural micing technique or something mimicking it is used to record the live event ie Neumann dummy head, Jecklin disc, Bluemlein etc. If you reproduce these types of recordings through onmi radiating speakers, it won't sound correct and all spatial cues will be smeared by the resulting added room reflections. When a typical pair of directional (narrow dispersion pattern) radiating speakers is used to play back the live recording, the stereo separation improves and you can hear the sound closer to the way it was originally recorded, sort of like listening to a big pair of headphones (albeit with extra crossfeed).
Thank you very much indeed for your very interesting and helpful advice
A little OT one of my dreams was to make some live recordings of classical music in churches or similar places with just two mics
In my mind the mics should be designed as a speaker with a diaphragm excited only for the front and closed back
Instead if i understand well mics are dipoles? So there is also a rear pressure
This is wrong They should mimic a speaker I am sure the playable would be more realistic
A little OT one of my dreams was to make some live recordings of classical music in churches or similar places with just two mics
In my mind the mics should be designed as a speaker with a diaphragm excited only for the front and closed back
Instead if i understand well mics are dipoles? So there is also a rear pressure
This is wrong They should mimic a speaker I am sure the playable would be more realistic
well, there were two mics in a head shape enclosure where of course the mic is inside ears. There were a lot od stereo reccording for classical events in venues. the problem is always : what is the optimal area to place the 2 mics as it is all about indirect sounds as well.
Still.... a better behaving speaker with better directivity - to me - sounds way better in most rooms. I've heard an expensive speaker where the tweeter was very "wide" and the midrange not. That speaker had terrible stereo image, compared to any other speaker, with better directivity. And this was in a very nice acoustically great room - right in the sweet spot.
And today - with all those easily available simulation software programs and measurement equipment. Then I see no reason, why one should not be building a speaker with nice smooth and even response all over.
