What is coloration and

[JBLRaiser]

can it be measured.

[Mr. Widget]

Coloration is any subjective characteristic of a loudspeaker that changes it's output away from the sound of the input. It is quite complex. It is made up of frequency response, phase and time related distortions, harmonic and intermodulation distortions, and other factors which can be measured... but it is also made up other factors that as of yet don't seem to be quantified. This is why it is possible for a speaker with a less linear frequency response measurement to sound more accurate than one with a smoother curve. Extreme equalization whether passively accomplished in the network or actively implemented via an external EQ will also add distortions that while correcting the frequency response will color the sound.

Every loudspeaker will color the sound, it is a matter of degree. The perfect loudspeaker is yet to be introduced and then there is also personal preference. Some of us enjoy the colorations of certain loudspeakers. Most vintage loudspeakers and horn based systems in particular have far more colorations than a quality contemporary system.

This also doesn't consider dynamics... I don't think dynamic compression is considered a form of coloration, but it certainly affects the reproduction. The larger horn based systems that many of us enjoy have far better performance in this regard than most contemporary designs. I suspect this is a contributing factor to our appreciation for these vintage designs. It is possible that many of us are more sensitive to the effects of dynamic compression than other colorations and so we ignore the colorations to preserve the dynamics.


Widget

[whizzer]

What Widget says is spot on. If we take a "live performance" as what we're trying to reproduce, we have to realize that no two live performances will have the same "color" as a result of different diffraction patterns, standing waves, etc. that result from the fact that no two venues are identical, partly as a result of different physical room characteristics, different audience mass (even), temperature variations, and so forth. One thing that changes least, however, from one performance to the next is dynamics. Live music often has a ratio of 128:1 from the loudest to softest sounds performed. Most loudspeakers intended for the reproduction of that sound in a home environment, alas, have nowhere near this much range. This is why so many of us here, regardless of the tonal coloration, find the Altec and JBL (and Klipsche, too) "monster systems" simply more "realistic."

[subwoof]

Coloration is what ted turner did to otherwise good B+W movies..:o)

Actually it is very subjective and the listener who likes tube amps with high distortion and no damping coupled to large horns will just hate a pair of L100's while a recording engineer who needs to hear if bass guitar strings are dirty on a critical recording would hate them too for very different reasons.

While some artifacts can be measured, the room and enviromental situations ( and equipment ) that the speaker is used can have so many variables defining it would be impossible.

Which means that the esoteric botiques that sell rarium coated oxygen free interconnects can say what they want with no basis in fact but still get someone somewhere to give a "holycrap" testimonial...

PT barnum was right.

sub

[scott fitlin]

Coloration is what ted turner did to otherwise good B+W movies..:o)

:applaud:

[Rolf]

can it be measured.

Yes it can, but for what purpose? When I play music on my set I can easily here when in occurs, then I slow down.

[JBLRaiser]

Coloration is any subjective characteristic of a loudspeaker that changes it's output away from the sound of the input. It is quite complex. It is made up of frequency response, phase and time related distortions, harmonic and intermodulation distortions, and other factors which can be measured... but it is also made up other factors that as of yet don't seem to be quantified. This is why it is possible for a speaker with a less linear frequency response measurement to sound more accurate than one with a smoother curve. Extreme equalization whether passively accomplished in the network or actively implemented via an external EQ will also add distortions that while correcting the frequency response will color the sound.

Every loudspeaker will color the sound, it is a matter of degree. The perfect loudspeaker is yet to be introduced and then there is also personal preference. Some of us enjoy the colorations of certain loudspeakers. Most vintage loudspeakers and horn based systems in particular have far more colorations than a quality contemporary system.

This also doesn't consider dynamics... I don't think dynamic compression is considered a form of coloration, but it certainly affects the reproduction. The larger horn based systems that many of us enjoy have far better performance in this regard than most contemporary designs. I suspect this is a contributing factor to our appreciation for these vintage designs. It is possible that many of us are more sensitive to the effects of dynamic compression than other colorations and so we ignore the colorations to preserve the dynamics.


Widget

prior to running it through your speakers? Can there be coloration in the input? If so, how do you know if the coloration is in the input or is in the output? My reason for asking is to understand how more accurate speakers are determined. Whether a wider frequency range , coupled with a more linear response results in a better speaker. Hope I'm not being redundant after your excellent response. Thanks,
Raiser

[Ian Mackenzie]

What is already said is correct.

I suppose you have to know something about what causes colouration before you can figure out and decide how to measure it.

What is colouration?

In simplified layman's terms a reviewer of a loudspeaker might say a system sounds coloured because its adding a sound of its own..a flavour... In particular a boxy sound, or in reference to the midrange having a clearly identified tonal quality regardless of program material.

Colouration has a much to do with enclosure design & construction, horn design a& driver polar dispersion at crossover points as it does with driver materials and design. But I will talk about drivers here as they are in many ways the origin or source of the problem.

Cone materials and design

Notably, the mechanical / physical properties for driver cones behave in manner specific to sound waves exciting the cone material.

Mass, self damping, stiffness and other complex mechanical modulus cause spurious resonances not only in amplitude but also in spectral time domain response measurements. We are talking about cone excitation and stored energy and how it is damped. Drivers don't exactly start and stop on a dime. Cone materials and construction, the surround and the profile of a cone can be used to control these characteristics that occur both in amplitude an time.

Anyone heard of acquaplas?

Surrounds and spiders that control compliance and other parameters are also excited by the real motion of the cone and contribute their own effects of the output of the driver. Magnetic systems can also introduce even and odd order harmonic distortions.

In other words, a driver or indeed a complete system may measure flat or smooth with sine wave or 1/3 pink noise. But if measured for spectral time domain response certain frequencies or resonances may take a longer or shorter time to decay than the fundermental which may also ring for a duration depending on the self damping properties of the diaphragm materials.

A typical example that is commonly discussed is aluminium versus titamium and beryllium used for diaphragms in compression drivers.

Blends of paper and other materials such as carbon fibre and fibreglass are used in cones drivers. Polyprolyne is also used and more recently with mineral fillers to improve stiffness and self damping.

The issue is compounded by the fact that a driver many exhibit low colouration in one frequency band such as the midrange but perform badly in the bass or high frequency region. Early polypropolyne cones had the former problem. Laminates are also popular with some manufacturers using a sandwich cone construction.

To the naked ear they each have characteristic tonal colouration.

For sone funny reason many prefer the tonal character of paper cones. Possibly in the best cases because they a light, relatively stiff and have a natural self damping that is neither over or underdamped.

These types of material behaviours (that cause what is referred to as tonal sound colouration) can only be measured reliably in a laboratory.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Raiser,

That is one of the reasons some people spend a lifetime buying an trying different combinations.

It depends on the particular amplifer and source. You need to change out the amp and the source with an alternative to prove what is happening.

The more accurate the loudspeaker is the more likely you will hear colouration of the source (amp).

Typically it will be a lot more sublte but more irritating in the longer term.

There is a lot of argument about what is more important.

It is surprising the degree of colouration an amp can deliver to the loudspeaker. I suspect its a good and a bad thing for some. None (colouration) anywhere in the system can also be a problem because many your CD's sound less than pleasing!

That is probably a good sign of low colouration.

In both cases you will find people dont enjoy listening to their system as much. :banghead:

Obviously if the source is crap you cannot recover that. Isolation is important to ensure the source is not effected by vibrations from the loudspeaker ie turntable and cd player.

[JBLRaiser]

Raiser,

That is one of the reasons some people spend a lifetime buying an trying different combinations.

It depends on the particular amplifer and source. You need to change out the amp and the source with an alternative to prove what is happening.

The more accurate the loudspeaker is the more likely you will hear colouration of the source (amp).

Typically it will be a lot more sublte but more irritating in the longer term.

There is a lot of argument about what is more important.

It is surprising the degree of colouration an amp can deliver to the loudspeaker. I suspect its a good and a bad thing for some. None (colouration) anywhere in the system can also be a problem because many your CD's sound less than pleasing!

That is probably a good sign of low colouration.

In both cases you will find people dont enjoy listening to their system as much. :banghead:

Obviously if the source is crap you cannot recover that. Isolation is important to ensure the source is not effected by vibrations from the loudspeaker ie turntable and cd player.


I think I get it. Coloration is the sum of the parts. And they vary with room,box,driver materials,source. etc. Which makes any attempt at measuring impossible outside the lab. Which leads to why this speaker collection, trade, upgrade thing we do is never ending. I've enjoyed my model 19's, but sure would like to try a four way JBL.

[Robh3606]

I've enjoyed my model 19's, but sure would like to try a four way JBL.

You should. They are a completely different perspective. It really is a personal thing and you should try as many different "flavors" as you can. All these systems have their compromises. You just have to find the right set for you. Me I just love the 4 ways so this is definately a biased opinion. Have not found a true 2 way yet that can compete. Best thing you can do is give it a try and have your own informed opinion.

Rob:)

[Ian Mackenzie]

I I've enjoyed my model 19's, but sure would like to try a four way JBL.

That's it. The model 19 is a great loudspeaker and one of the classic 2 way vintage designs.

With some careful matching of other equipment they can really deliver. The cute Manley Stingray integrated amp valve amp, a VPI TT , Grado cartridge and a Musical Fidelity XRay Cd player front end would be my choice. Warm, lush and very musical. On the Ö'l 4 ways there's no gain without pain. Money and a lot more complexity. If your Altec compression drivers are in good shape I would continue to play with them.

Some Lansing forum members have very (nice) elaborate systems using the 604 tricked up. I would seek them out for tips on setting up the 19's and associated gear.

Think about your room too and how you got it sorted.


Ian

[JBLRaiser]

That's it. The model 19 is a great loudspeaker and one of the classic 2 way vintage designs.

With some careful matching of other equipment they can really deliver. The cute Manley Stingray integrated amp valve amp, a VPI TT , Grado cartridge and a Musical Fidelity XRay Cd player front end would be my choice. Warm, lush and very musical. On the Ö'l 4 ways there's no gain without pain. Money and a lot more complexity. If your Altec compression drivers are in good shape I would continue to play with them.

Some Lansing forum members have very (nice) elaborate systems using the 604 tricked up. I would seek them out for tips on setting up the 19's and associated gear.

Think about your room too and how you got it sorted.


Ian


talking speakers again is a lot more enlightening and satisfying than the OT that took up so much of my time.;)

[Mannermusic]

You should. They are a completely different perspective. It really is a personal thing and you should try as many different "flavors" as you can. All these systems have their compromises. You just have to find the right set for you. Me I just love the 4 ways so this is definately a biased opinion. Have not found a true 2 way yet that can compete. Best thing you can do is give it a try and have your own informed opinion.

Rob:)

Second that - The 4-way is no easy task but a whole new musical dimension. Literally, for one: the sound is spread vertically over four transducers which yeilds an almost vertical stereo effect. If you are a musician, you will be hearing the 2nd and 3rd trumpet or violin parts with astonishing clarity. And, if you were using a big honkin' horn previously, the added cone mid-range gets rid of all that inherent lower frequency compression driver (what I assume is) phase distortion that the human ears seem to hate. I think the passive crossover path is best - did it both ways - because the electronics gets to be absurd. Endless connection problems. To my surprise, a high quality passive sounds as good, possibly better. Takes time - good for engineering retirees!:barf:

[Ian Mackenzie]

Oh Raiser,

For politically correct reasons this Thread never existed on the Lansing forums. ...LOL

[Ducatista47]

Coloration is a great topic. Subjective as all get out, but so is listening to music. The end result I personally seek is "naturalness," and lack of balance in a speaker's audio spectrum output is one of the worst offenders in this respect.

If you get killer midbass but so-so midrange, for instance, it might as well be a table radio as far as I am concerned. This applies to frequency response and quality of sound equally. A system that sounds like each frequency band (an arbitrary division system, I know, but we need a common language here) was designed and manufactured by a different committee ruins the natural presentation immediately. It is coloration of the worst sort. A good example of everything done right is the company Canton. Whether it is a tiny bookshelf or the best floorstander, all have a wonderfull similar sound balance. You can tell a Canton speaker blindfolded in five seconds; very nice bass, stunning midrange that rings like a bell, and excellent high frequency extension. All of which blend beautifully, sounding like they come from one transducer.

My limited experience with JBL four-ways has delivered fine balance as I never thought possible. It is an approach I would highly recommend from personal experience.

Just don't forget to measure (by equipment or lacking that the local Golden Ear) and balance the output of the separate transducers for your particular room, ears and program material. Individual rooms and hearing must be taken into account no matter what you want a system to sound like. What matters is how sound is propagated in your listening room, not an anechoic chamber in a lab. Then once a michrophone says it's balanced, changes may be needed to work around hearing anomalies.

Clark in Peoria

[SEAWOLF97]

I think EARS are the ultimate colorizer. Really doubt that any 2 of us hear the same music exactly the same way. Age, room acoustics, tiredness , outside noise all colorize the material.

And then who is to say that it is colorized ? Do the same ears hear the original as do hear the reproduction ?

My wif colorizes her hearing, hears what she wants to, and doesn't hear me. In fact my music sounds completely different to her. Its the ears/brain combo.

Just pick the colorizer that most pleases you.........

[speakerdave]

I think EARS are the ultimate colorizer. Really doubt that any 2 of us hear the same music exactly the same way. Age, room acoustics, tiredness , outside noise all colorize the material.

And then who is to say that it is colorized ? Do the same ears hear the original as do hear the reproduction ?

My wif colorizes her hearing, hears what she wants to, and doesn't hear me. In fact my music sounds completely different to her. Its the ears/brain combo.

Just pick the colorizer that most pleases you.........

So, you mean the only standard is absolutely particularist?

[SEAWOLF97]

So, you mean the only standard is absolutely particularist?


what standard exists ?

[Zilch]

Other factors being equal, 75% of listeners prefer neutral, transparent, uncolored-sounding systems.

The remaining 25%, disproportionately male, in large part suffer hearing deficits of one sort or another:

http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/AudioScience.pdf

[speakerdave]

what standard exists ?

Well, that's a good question. It's an interesting point about the ears, by the way. They are all different, and I agree it matters.

It's just that I think, although it's been said many times in these forums that one's preference is ultimately the final arbiter, to say at the beginning that there is no point in making an effort to find faithful reproduction kind of obviates the whole enterprise of high fidelity that we are engaged in here.

David

[SEAWOLF97]

Other factors being equal, 75% of listeners prefer neutral, transparent, uncolored-sounding systems.

The remaining 25%, disproportionately male, in large part suffer hearing deficits of one sort or another:

http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/AudioScience.pdf

Interesting article....

it shows engineers designing to PREDICT SUBJECTIVE OPINION. So in effect, they are designing IN the colorization that they think is most pleasing ?

I dont think that you will get the 75 percent of listeners into an environ where all other factors will be equal.

IF colorization is a change from the original, then doing a REVERSE CHANNEL is coloroization ? even tho the music has not changed , but only the relative position of the instruments ?

[Zilch]

it shows engineers designing to PREDICT SUBJECTIVE OPINION. So in effect, they are designing IN the colorization that they think is most pleasing?No, it would appear they are designing it OUT, as neutral is the desired performance.

L100 lovers describe it as "colorless."

Uhmmm, "Right."

[They're in the wrong department, is what.... :p ]

[SEAWOLF97]

I am thinking that colorization is a perception, and impossible to quantify or agree on, although I agree with you Zilch about the desired result.

since there are so many links in the audio chain from live recording thru the final reproduction, just too many chances to have the end result not equal the starting point ?

[4313B]

It's just that I think, although it's been said many times in these forums that one's preference is ultimately the final arbiter, to say at the beginning that there is no point in making an effort to find faithful reproduction kind of obviates the whole enterprise of high fidelity that we are engaged in here.And those who peddle it depend on others believing it. :yes:

[Zilch]

Since there are so many links in the audio chain from live recording thru the final reproduction, just too many chances to have the end result not equal the starting point ?Well, no, I don't think. Each link in the production end typically strives to provide the desired "product" on the medium. That's different for hip-hop vs. country, rock, or classical, of course.

If what we do with it from there in playback is transparent, we get what was intended, for better or worse. We may like more the outcome of what we have and do that subsequently colors the sound in our own systems, but, at best, it's "artificial." Some people prefer everything to sound like it's coming from a '50s juke box, for example.

That's where the "personal preference" thing comes into play. I can't argue that's WRONG, per se, but it's certainly inconsistent with the objective of faithfully reproducing the program as intended. If somebody likes what they get with stacked L100s, that's fine, but let's not be pretending its anything other than an adulterated presentation.

And that's also where objectivists and subjectivists part ways. I can measure Altec Valencias or JBL L200s and clearly demonstrate that they are not up to contemporary standards of high fidelity music reproduction insofar as even their fundamental frequency response is concerned. Does that mean anybody would be stupid to like them? Well, no, but it does mean that there may be ways to mitigate their apparent coloration and provide a more enjoyable listening experience.

"I like them just the way they are."

Well, fine. When and if that perception changes, we'll talk about it. How 'bout them Warriors, huh?.... :thmbsup:

[Ian Mackenzie]

I agree with Seawolf97,

You can debate this and argue the point till the cows come home. But unless you apply some scientific fact and nous to what you think your on about its a nothing more than waffle over a beer at the pub.

Ask yourself am I seeking out what was meant to be put of the recording or am I only interested in hearing my version of events.

Basically right from the get go it could get buggered up with the studio engineer simply because if the studio acoustics are crap at the particular frequency or the room is set up for a particular flavour (which is often the case) the engineer can over compensate and as a result the recording is flawed. Some recordings and labels master on the basis of certain assumptions about the target market. I call it drive time music.

But the better the final audio playback system the easier it is to detect these flaws and deliberate flavours.

I can play a number of Cd's and the manner and skill of the engineer is quite obvious. So is the flavour.

If I plug the JBL's into the Kenwood wonder box and use the analogue outputs of the dvd player these flaws are far less detectable because there is a distinct tonal signature overlaid on the sound and a lot of the fine resolution is lost.

I would refer to the tonal signature as colouration and this tends to normalise what I call my attitude to what I hear. For the purpose of this discussion the Kenwood/DVD player tends to add a boogie factor to the sound (apart from totally destroying the native signal.)

If I did'nt know any better and I was less educated on what it was meant to sound like my preference might well be for what I hear with the Kenwood /DVd player.

But here is the crunch. It depends a lot on what type of genre you like to listen to.

I you like rock or pop I think you can afford to be a lot more relaxed about what happens because of lot of what is recorded is fabricated and all over the place and this tends to mask a lot of flaws in both the recording and on playback. With all that noise going on the threshold of detecting real generic flaws is relatively high. To prove this I played my favourite AC/DC DVD.

If you like acoustic guitar its a bit more of a test but without other references like vocals or a piano the very nature of the guitar with lots of reverberant over tones is fairly forgiving of what happens up or down stream in the recording process. Play some Larry Carlton.

If you like opera that's going to be a bit of a headache. Its a lot more difficult to record and playback. The natural acoustics of the concert hall, the orchestra and the vocal range is not only going to stress everthing but also provides a much lower threshold to detect colourations. Play a Chesky recording and you will see what I mean. Or maybe you won't as the case maybe.

I therefore tend to think its all relative to what you like to play most. Mitigating the issues with loudspeakers and associated equipment might not deliver the result you are looking for with every recording.

Nice expensive audio equipment is like jewerly. You only wear it (out) with the company you like to keep. (No smart ass remarks Rolf)

Your listening room however is the final arbitrator and you should attempt to do everything within reasonable limits to make sure your loudspeakers and the room are set up for the best possible outcome.

[SEAWOLF97]

the particular COLORIZATION that I prefer for customizing my listening experience is SRS ....Sound Retrieval System that claims to recover sounds lost in normal reproduction. I use a Hughes Aircraft SRS and love it.

It creates (for me , at least) a more realistic sound field. When I demo the Beatles-LOVE cd's first track "Because", every listener has had the same reaction. They close their eyes and proclaim " Its like they are in the room"

[/URL]

Sound Retrieval System

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_Retrieval_System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_Retrieval_System)


The Sound Retrieval System (or SRS) is a patented psychoacoustic 3D audio processing technology originally invented by Arnold Klayman in the early 1980s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980). The SRS technology applies head-related transfer functions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-related_transfer_function) (HRTFs) to create an immersive 3D soundfield using only two speakers, widening the "sweet spot," creating a more spacious sense of ambience, and producing strong localization cues for discrete instruments within an audio mix. SRS is not a Dolby matrix surround decoder but works with normal stereo recordings.
Initially Hughes Aircraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_Aircraft), for whom Klayman was doing acoustic consulting at the time, offered a standalone SRS audio processor.

[Titanium Dome]

I think of coloration as analogous to dust. It's everywhere, but sometimes it's hard to detect, sometimes you can live with a little, and sometimes it's just plain unacceptable. If you go into different houses you see people have different tolerances, some greater and some lesser than your own.

When I see someone constantly obsessing with it, I tend to think, "Geez, life is too short and you know as soon as you clean, more dust is on the way. In fact, you're basically just redistributing it." Then in some places it's like, "Man, you have no standards whatsoever; don't you ever clean this place? I gotta go. I can't relax in this pig pen."

[Titanium Dome]

For me the best compromise is a four-way system. However, well-designed four ways are not all that successful in the markteplace. The L250/250Ti was successful from a longevity standpoint. They were in (limited) production for years. However, I'm not certain how well they actually sold.

Most of the big, serious JBL consumer four-ways were probably low volume sellers compared to three-way systems in the same line. Of course, I have several of these: L250, XPL200, L7, and PT800/PS1400 stack. I love each of them, and it's striking how similar they are yet how much difference there is.

For various reasons, most of my three-ways are less satisfying and they seem more colored than the four-ways. 240ti, XPL160, L100, E50 etc.

My two ways with direct radiators seem the most colored of all, while my two-ways with horns (and compression drivers) seem almost as good as the four-ways. They may even have some advantage in dynamic range that compensates for distortion.

The two-way "plus" systems like the 1400 Array, K2 S9800, and Everest II (by reputation—haven't heard it) can really take dynamic range and lack of coloration to a new level, but they're expensive as hell and the engineering is beyond the ken of mere mortals. Yet, I feel the Performance Series also is one of the least-colored (coloured ;) ) systems I've ever heard, though it cannot match the ultimate dynamic range of the big two-way "plus" systems.

If one were looking for a great dollar-to-benefit ratio in terms of dynamic range, distortion levels, and coloration, I still can't think of a better set than the Performance Series at around $7k for two stacks, despite its known limitations. Perhaps the new Revel Ultima2 Salon will redefine that value, but at around $22k for a pair, suddenly the K2 S9800 is very attractive.

Some guys can really focus in on what they want and pursue a "perfect system." At 56, I don't think I can because I like too much variety, and the coloration that moves me today can easily be replaced tomorrow. That's why I've got the L250s, XPL200s, and L7s all on the same system running through the ProCo RMS-1 (more coloration?) so I can find the coloration that sounds best at the moment. If I get one more PS1400, I'll add those stacks to the line up down there, too.

Coloration du jour, mesdames et monsieurs.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Perhaps a more realistic comparison would be to compare the L200 to the L250 in reference to colouration.

On rock the L200 is fine but fails badly on classical. Technically one of its main issues was the horn and the lack of even dispersion around the crossover point.

They sorted that out largely with the arrival of the 4430-4435.

The Geddes waveguide being the next step in evolution of that type of system.

[Robh3606]

Hello Zilch


I can measure Altec Valencias or JBL L200s and clearly demonstrate that they are not up to contemporary standards of high fidelity music reproduction insofar as even their fundamental frequency response is concerned.

If it were only that simple. The Frequency Response is not what determines if the speakers sounds "real" or "right". It's only a factor in a complex set of variables that are not completely understood. Sure progress has been made but the final chapters are not there yet.

We have no control of what is on the CD. The only thing we can do is assume that they got it right even though on some it really does not sound that way. All our systems should do is faithfully reproduce whatever program source we choose to use. No more no less.

Rob:)

[JBLRaiser]

I think EARS are the ultimate colorizer. Really doubt that any 2 of us hear the same music exactly the same way. Age, room acoustics, tiredness , outside noise all colorize the material.

And then who is to say that it is colorized ? Do the same ears hear the original as do hear the reproduction ?

My wif colorizes her hearing, hears what she wants to, and doesn't hear me. In fact my music sounds completely different to her. Its the ears/brain combo.

Just pick the colorizer that most pleases you.........

in the Avatar. If so, where is he?

[4313B]

Hello Zilch



If it were only that simple. The Frequency Response is not what determines if the speakers sounds "real" or "right". It's only a factor in a complex set of variables that are not completely understood. Sure progress has been made but the final chapters are not there yet.

We have no control of what is on the CD. The only thing we can do is assume that they got it right even though on some it really does not sound that way. All our systems should do is faithfully reproduce whatever program source we choose to use. No more no less.

Rob:)Thanks Rob! :)

[SEAWOLF97]

Is that the Wolf....... in the Avatar. If so, where is he?

In the middle of the pic. Duh....

Oh ? , you mean the location of that place that needs a new roof ? Think it was Yurup.

[Titanium Dome]

Hello Zilch


faithfully reproduce whatever program source we choose to use.

Rob:)

One person's coloration pain is another person's coloration pleasure? ;)

[Ducatista47]

"Remember that sound and music enjoyment are very personal things and that what makes you happy may or may not please others. Screw them. If you are happy and no one is getting hurt then go for it. No loudspeaker system even approaches real life so there is plenty of room for interpretation."

I thought it was a nice time to quote this gold standard from Mr. Greg Timbers once again. The last sentence speaks volumes to me.

When I feel my system sounds real enough to give me an ego problem, I revisit live music for comparison. Lately the Dingledine Center near the Bradley University campus has been the stop. It hosts acoustic recitals, unamplified, in a nice room. The real deal, soundwise. As faculty and local talent help out, the quality is good, too. I like to sit second row center.

The last two Sundays presented (mostly) acoustic classical guitar and a string bass. I can now say that I have still never heard acoustic bass rendered anywhere close to reality by any system I have yet heard. Even with Patricia Barber recordings, vinyl or cd, 2245's powered by solid state or tubes, and all. By the way, I look to Steve's Cogent gear for improvement there. http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90360&postcount=20

Should this keep any of us from trying to reproduce reality? Of course not!

Clark in Peoria

[Zilch]

If one were looking for a great dollar-to-benefit ratio in terms of dynamic range, distortion levels, and coloration, I still can't think of a better set than the Performance Series at around $7k for two stacks, despite its known limitations. Perhaps the new Revel Ultima2 Salon will redefine that value, but at around $22k for a pair, suddenly the K2 S9800 is very attractive.That's a pretty huge jump from $1000 for a pair of 4430s you're talking yourself into there.... :p

[Zilch]

You can debate this and argue the point till the cows come home. But unless you apply some scientific fact and nous to what you think your on about its a nothing more than waffle over a beer at the pub.
I you like rock or pop I think you can afford to be a lot more relaxed about what happens because of lot of what is recorded is fabricated and all over the place and this tends to mask a lot of flaws in both the recording and on playback. With all that noise going on the threshold of detecting real generic flaws is relatively high. To prove this I played my favourite AC/DC DVD.You're doin' a bit of that pub waffle yourself, apparently, Ian.

Read "Interpreting the Details in the Curves," beginning on page 16, op. cit.. Indeed, there IS "Good enough for Rock 'n' Roll," but it is in fact MORE restrictive than for many other music genres.

******

I don't know where anyone's getting the impression that I somehow believe frequency response to be the sole element defining quality music reproduction. There are certainly others, including some we are as yet unable to quantify.

HOWEVER, if Toole and his peers (including Geddes, independently,) are credible in demonstrating strong correlations between technical measurements and subjective performance ratings, I believe I can fairly argue that frequency response is a primary factor:



Among the results are conclusions that measurements with 1/3-octave resolution are not adequate, that sound power or in-room measurements alone are not sufficient to predict listener preferences, and that the flatness and smoothness of high-resolution on-axis curves need to be given substantial weighting.

[Robh3606]

Hello Zilch


I don't know where anyone's getting the impression that I somehow believe frequency response to be the sole element defining quality music reproduction.

Well to be honest look at what you post and your moniker. What are you using over on AK "More Data Less Wank" I wouldn't say you think it's the sole defining element but I think you have gone a bit curve crazy. You also seem to have an obsession with response out to 20K and if a speaker doesn't go out to 20K it needs to be "fixed" when is some cases that simply isn't so. If you equate Wank to subjective impressions sometimes the "Wank" is what really counts. When they fine tune a system with a listeners panel or with blind testing they are not using the measurements. They are using the listeners subjective impressions to make the final decissions on how a system is voiced.

You asked and I am sure I have my quirks as well. I was once an RTA Junky but I weened myself off:blink:


HOWEVER, if Toole and his peers (including Geddes, independently,) are credible in demonstrating strong correlations between technical measurements and subjective performance ratings, I believe I can fairly argue that frequency response is a primary factor:


I happen to agree with you however it's not end all and be all. We can measure and post CLIO measurements all damn day and it still won't translate to what a speaker system really sounds like. That's the problem.

Glad to see that they are making progress in correlating what we measure with what we hear.


Rob:)

[Zilch]

You also seem to have an obsession with response out to 20K and if a speaker doesn't go out to 20K it needs to be "fixed" when is some cases that simply isn't so.At one time, that was certainly true. Having encountered the consequences of excessive boost in slavish pursuit of "flat to 20 kHz," I've tempered that somewhat, however, now relying more upon the inherent VHF response capabilities of each driver/waveguide combination. In some of my most recent work, I'm actually attenuating response out there, because it's an apparent breakup artifact.

But here, in discussing coloration, the perspective is more gross in scale. If the system response is down 10 dB at 10 kHz, and crashing beyond that, I'm not lending a lot of credibility to anyone's subjective opinion touting the virtues of that systems' wonderful high-frequency response, and posting the CLIO curve should certainly substantiate a contrary view. You and I both know what that sounds like, without even hearing it, yet:


Interesting,your remarks about the 808a/511. I know that the 811b/806a isn't comparable but I find the defintion, dynamic nuance and veracity of the Altec horn top-end response to be very able and satisfying.

Thus, when someone dismissively asserts that the measurements are of nature meaningless, as frequently occurs in these public forums, I'm stepping forward to demonstrate, in the most tactful way I can, that they've got their head firmly embedded in a well-known dark place....

[Titanium Dome]

That's a pretty huge jump from $1000 for a pair of 4430s you're talking yourself into there.... :p

Since I used price as a point of reference, your assertion is fair, but it can be misleading, as I was using price only in the context of contemporary gear—and full retail at that.

Of course one can get a pair of used 4430s for under $1500 and 4435s for maybe 2x or 3x that (all condition and madness dependent), but if they were new and selling at inflation-adjusted prices, they'd suffer by comparison to the gear mentioned.

For example, if I could buy 4430s new today at around $4,300 (adjusted for inflation), I'd still rather spend the $7,000 on the PS stacks. Of course, as it is, I wouldn't pay full retail for any of it, including K2 S9800s or Revel Ultima2 Salons. I wouldn't expect to pay way less than one-quarter of retail like I did with the PS*, but discounts of 30–50% are doable for the patient and opportunistic among us.

I've already seen a pair of K2 S9800s for $13k+ and another for $15k+, so I think the questions are "How much more is one willing to pay for incremental but important improvements?" and "When is the return on investment diminished to the point of a loss for the improvement gained?"


*In fact, the cost of my pair of new PS stacks was nearly $200 less than the pair of used but excellent 4430s I bought.

[Robh3606]

Bump

Rob:)

[Ducatista47]

I was struck by Widget's comments in another thread about how the 4345 sounds good despite the technical inferiority in several seemingly important departments to the 4430/35. (http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=168042&postcount=5) Like Greg Timbers said, even with everything that should be wrong with it, "no one told the 4345 it can't work correctly so it does anyway."

I have heard a small number of very modern designs that sound wonderful, but like Scotty I find myself sometimes more drawn to a more pleasing but perhaps less "technical" sound. In his case, Altec; in my case, 4345's; in both cases, tubes.

At the heart of this seems to be a coloration issue. I really don't think nostalgia has anything to do with it. It is all about the bottom line, the end product, the final sound that reaches the ear.

The more I think about coloration, the more central an issue I feel it is to what we are all, individually, looking for in music reproduction. In the end, a total lack of coloration in a system would take a lot of getting used to, and actually might not remind us of reality very much. Perhaps trying to eradicate coloration completely is not a useful approach after all. Perhaps coloration can allow an imperfect system (read real world system) to increase the sense of reality, like adding salt to our food heightens reality for us. In other words, coloration could be an ingredient in a successful audio recipe. Since it is inevitable, make it work for us. Just don't ask me how!

All I know is my personal experience; the 4345 seems to be a good example of the principle at work. So much technically wrong with it, but it sounds so pleasing. It seems to work pretty well "anyway."

Clark in Peoria

[Ian Mackenzie]

Clark,

This will make you laugh.

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=169537&postcount=46
http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=169605&postcount=49

No doubt the lanky yanky will chime in with an eggregious explanation....LOL:rotfl:

[Ducatista47]

Well, Bo's approach is understandable. If I am not mistaken about what he does for a living, he uses these sound shaping techniques professionally to bring live sound to a larger audience than the first few rows would allow. This is a very valid and useful approach. His recommendation of rendering a speaker's response flat, getting used to how it sounds and using that as a starting point is a great way to work.

I personally prefer the sound in the first few rows too, but my tastes run to unamplified acoustic music. No mikes, no amps, just musicians and their instruments sending sound waves to my ears. This leads to a different approach when reproducing the music in my home. Have as little signal processing as possible. Ditch the preamp or line stage, pick the highest quality amplification you can afford, use high effeciency speakers so lower power, cleaner amplification can be employed. Use all analog from front to back.

If the source is good, if the amps are great, and if your speakers are superior units, the naturalism, realism and clarity of the sound produced more than makes up for any technical weaknesses like lack of ruler flat response or time domain errors. Given what I listen to and how I like to listen to it, this approach sounds more natural to myself and all who have listened with me. By comparison, the more complex signal chains sound synthetic to us.

But that's me. There is nothing wrong in any way with Bo's approach as far as I am concerned. But I do admit to smiling a little too broadly when I see a rig that has more links in the chain than there were musicians in the original performance.;)

Clark

[Ian Mackenzie]

I realise what you are saying but perhaps my point was not so obvious.
Quote "The incorporation of the Bryston xover and TAD TD-2002 CD's has mitigated the most eggregious of my system and 4345 frequency response - I need less EQ in fewer places, and fine control. Those of you who know the CP-10 will "get it"..."

Bo's post to me implied the better signal path electronics, the new (TAD) CD on the horn suggests a less self indulgent use of the EQ is required...Quote "I need less EQ in fewer places."


This is easy to say in hindsight but it suggests to me the worse the signal is with impurities the more one is akin to wanting to make it better. Thus if one has access to adjustments one will fiddle with them because he wants to.

I just wonder how many with a rack of ML's flanked by Everest 6600's would go looking for a parametric EQ. Most likely they would build the room around the system.

As I have posted elsewhere it would appear EQ, even for the most experienced knob farmer won’t always eliminate the offending problem.

It will be interesting to see where this leads to if Bo does decide to upgrade his stock 3145 networks.