Sub Woofer

Dedicated to those large boxes at one end of the room
Daniel Quinn
Old Hand
Posts: 859
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:19 am

#121 Re: Sub Woofer

Post by Daniel Quinn »

My simple point remains -

What is it telling you and why is what it is telling you of any value .

Here is my simple point -

A doctors measures my dads heart beat - it is 0bpm , that is telling me my dad is dead and it is useful to know if your dad is dead .

A women in the shop is telling me little boy DQ has 6f feet ,that tells me he as feet like a baby polar bear and needs new shoes


I have a frequency suck out at the crossover point when putting pink noise through them : WTF :D
Last edited by Daniel Quinn on Wed May 03, 2017 4:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Nick
Site Admin
Posts: 15706
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:20 am
Location: West Yorkshire

#122 Re: Sub Woofer

Post by Nick »

This is just a false dichotomy, the ears are just another measurement system we have available to us, like any other form of measurement, they can lie to use, or at least we can misunderstand what the measurement means, but that’s what study and training is for.

Fundamentally, there is no essential difference in Chris solving his peaky driver problem by feeding the music through a notch filter and slowly shifting the frequency until the problem goes away. The only practical difference is that he did it a lot quicker by using some test kit.
Whenever an honest man discovers that he's mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or he will cease to be honest.
Daniel Quinn
Old Hand
Posts: 859
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:19 am

#123 Re: Sub Woofer

Post by Daniel Quinn »

I don't agree vis a vis speakers only -

The inability for anybody to tell you what it is telling you with specific reference to the sound and why it is of value , is evidence of the fact it is useless IMO .

Also , it requires a believe that flat frequency response at listening position is the goal , I am far from convinced that is a worthwhile goal.

Thus , it could be argued that if "musicality" is your goal , measurement takes you away from it .
User avatar
Nick
Site Admin
Posts: 15706
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:20 am
Location: West Yorkshire

#124 Re: Sub Woofer

Post by Nick »

I don't agree vis a vis speakers only -
I fail to see why loudspeakers will be a special case, what about headphones?
The inability for anybody to tell you what it is telling you with specific reference to the sound and why it is of value , is evidence of the fact it is useless IMO .
In your opinion, but that does depend on the basic point being true, that its not possible to reference the result of a test with the effect it has on playing music. Its simple to create some boundary conditions where it is possible to know from the test what the effect will be, therefore the basic point is not true.
Also , it requires a believe that flat frequency response at listening position is the goal , I am far from convinced that is a worthwhile goal.
Strawman, the test doesn't control what the target result is.
Thus , it could be argued that if "musicality" is your goal , measurement takes you away from it .
Or you could just say, "because I want it to be true"
Whenever an honest man discovers that he's mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or he will cease to be honest.
Daniel Quinn
Old Hand
Posts: 859
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:19 am

#125 Re: Sub Woofer

Post by Daniel Quinn »

what is the point of frequency spectrum analysis if it is not to get it flat with the aid of crossover components ?

Are you suggesting there is a magical at listening position spectrum graph ? :wink:


ps- headphones are of course ear speakers . Misplaced pedantry surely ?
User avatar
Scottmoose
Needs to get out more
Posts: 1802
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 11:03 am
Contact:

#126 Re: Sub Woofer

Post by Scottmoose »

Pardon? I wasn't aware that the object of all multiway loudspeakers was to achieve a flat frequency / amplitude response. That must be one of those universally applicable rules that only a select few are aware of. I must rush to tell everybody that has specifically designed multiway loudspeakers with a non-flat response that their real goal was, unbeknownst to them, to design one with a flat response.
'"That'll do," comes the cry of the perfectionist down the ages.' (James May The Reassembler)
Website www.wodendesign.com
Community sites www.frugal-horn.com & www.frugal-phile.com
User avatar
Nick
Site Admin
Posts: 15706
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:20 am
Location: West Yorkshire

#127 Re: Sub Woofer

Post by Nick »

what is the point of frequency spectrum analysis if it is not to get it flat with the aid of crossover components ?
Well, in this case, it was to look for unexpected discontinuities in the response curve. Note the word curve does not predicate a flat line.
ps- headphones are of course ear speakers . Misplaced pedantry surely ?
So is it speakers only or not?
I don't agree vis a vis speakers only -
Whenever an honest man discovers that he's mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or he will cease to be honest.
Daniel Quinn
Old Hand
Posts: 859
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:19 am

#128 Re: Sub Woofer

Post by Daniel Quinn »

Eh. To the both of you.
User avatar
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
Old Hand
Posts: 1358
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:50 am
Location: Muppet Labs

#129 Re: Sub Woofer

Post by Dr Bunsen Honeydew »

chris661 wrote: Wed May 03, 2017 3:55 pm
Dr Bunsen Honeydew wrote: Wed May 03, 2017 3:37 pm Pink noise, swept sine or impulse response are not music, they are noises. Do they have emotional content - no, do they have musical timing content - no, do they have tune content (in or out of) - no, do they have layers of information so you can see if some are being obscured - no.

Result musically useless.
Well, you've got my attention again. This time it's not a disagreement, you're just factually incorrect.

Emotional content is something measurement signals don't have. I agree with you on that, though music is subjective and I suspect somebody out there quite likes pink noise.
Timing content, yes of course they do. The measurement system is comparing what's going to the speaker and what's coming back from the mic. Any deviations between the two (in time or amplitude) will be measured and recorded.
"Tune" content?! Well, if my speakers are being sent a C note and they play C sharp, I'm going to dismantle them and find out what magic is happening.
Layers of information? Of course. Pink noise particularly, since it containts all frequencies. If anything, that's more layered than any music anyone could name. Swept sine is quite the opposite - it containts exactly one frequency at any given time. If the speaker is producing more than one frequency, then it's adding distortion.

Chris
I have listened to many speaker who make the music out of tune especially a piano, it is fact. Test equipment doesn't not show it. Again a result of fecked up phase from filters. Same for your comment on timing, but is more subtle do the musician actually seem to play with each other or seem to understand each other, musically correct product shows this non musical nature but measuring correct product doesn't. C to C sharp is simplistic, though it can almost seem that extreme with some of the crap that is made. Nonsense, pink noise is layered noise not layered music, you cannot look for musical information in pink or white noise, it is noise. this is so basic it is hilarious.
User avatar
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
Old Hand
Posts: 1358
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:50 am
Location: Muppet Labs

#130 Re: Sub Woofer

Post by Dr Bunsen Honeydew »

Nick wrote: Wed May 03, 2017 4:08 pm This is just a false dichotomy, the ears are just another measurement system we have available to us, like any other form of measurement, they can lie to use, or at least we can misunderstand what the measurement means, but that’s what study and training is for.

Fundamentally, there is no essential difference in Chris solving his peaky driver problem by feeding the music through a notch filter and slowly shifting the frequency until the problem goes away. The only practical difference is that he did it a lot quicker by using some test kit.
Doing that gives you as much information as a rat being hit by a sledge hammer. There is a million percent more information in a musical signal than anything you can create to imitate it, and it cannot. To call your ears a measurement tool is ludicrous, they are the reason you want music in the first place in conjunction with your brain and energy centres. It is impossible for test equipment to activate those, they are individual and internal energy based. They have the same basis as taste (measure that) artistic interpretation (measure that), love, like or hate (measure that).
User avatar
Nick
Site Admin
Posts: 15706
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:20 am
Location: West Yorkshire

#131 Re: Sub Woofer

Post by Nick »

To call your ears a measurement tool is ludicrous
To filter out the new age bullshit and focus on the above, again, what else would you like to call them. I can see we are going to end up with a discussion about what the word means, and decide we place different meanings on it. So everything else that is said is just pointless.
Whenever an honest man discovers that he's mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or he will cease to be honest.
User avatar
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
Old Hand
Posts: 1358
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:50 am
Location: Muppet Labs

#132 Re: Sub Woofer

Post by Dr Bunsen Honeydew »

"NEW AGE BULLSHIT" it has absolutely nothing to do with new age bullshit. The day you take your mic* computer and test gear with you to listen and appreciate your music then you may be making sense, but who does that, no one. So the simple process of listening to music and making decisions from the *PLEASURE* it give you is new age. WRONG it is so old age it is GENETIC!

Tell me how you measure a taste, it is the same and similar energy and human mechanisms that interpret them.

mic* again ludicrous, this is a transducer, it suffers from the same (or more) limitations as the thing you are trying to design using it.
User avatar
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
Old Hand
Posts: 1358
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:50 am
Location: Muppet Labs

#133 Re: Sub Woofer

Post by Dr Bunsen Honeydew »

An ear does not measure it interprets.
User avatar
ed
retired
Posts: 5384
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 4:01 pm
Location: yorkshire
Contact:

#134 Re: Sub Woofer

Post by ed »

Dr Bunsen Honeydew wrote: Wed May 03, 2017 2:12 pm I find test gear lies to you, or doesn't tell you the whole truth, the only truth is music and ears. Relying on test gear will often point you in the wrong direction, you ears never point you in the wrong direction.

There is one truth about test gear, as I learnt years ago. Owning it, talking about it, using it and spouting its results is a form of implied superiority compared with the end user. Ultimately unwarranted. Plus having bought it you have to justify it, I sold most of mine years ago, a good multimeter and my ears do 99% of what I need. It was a relief to get rid of it and not be tempted to use it.
re the bold piece: I cannot image two audio researchers discussing some aspect without recourse to common understanding. IMO the only way to achieve this common understanding is to discuss in terms of accepted test language, obtained with accepted test gear......Much progress is made in scientific fields by researchers discussing amongst themselves....

Doc, how do you discuss audio findings with your peer designers?
There's nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be
User avatar
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
Old Hand
Posts: 1358
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:50 am
Location: Muppet Labs

#135 Re: Sub Woofer

Post by Dr Bunsen Honeydew »

Why the feck should I, they have nothing to teach me. My discussions about products is about music and its subjective interpretation, as that established the real level of quality of a product. They (the non technical hi-fi enthusiast) know far more about the quality of product than you objectivists will ever know by looking at your charts and specs. Some I can talk to who understand, others as with Moose it is a complete waste of time. Nick seems to come down on either side depending on how he feels or who he is talking to (subjective decision), or maybe is just being devils advocate.

You have in fact hit a reason for the problem, just that fact that you ask such a question shows how far from reality you people have come.

This is not a scientific field, the science is very low tech, it is an artistic field. A field of taste and flavours of sound. We ALL know what they should taste like, we are just trying to *reproduce it*.
Post Reply