Jump to content

fas42

  • Content Count

    3,546
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About fas42

Personal Information

  • Location
    Blue Mountains, Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

2,604 profile views
  1. fas42

    Measurements & Sound Quality

    What most people are quite unaware of is the dramatic improvement in the subjective presentation when the objective quality passes a certain point. So an improvement of 1% in some measurable parameter may result in a subjective improvement of 200%, to pull a figure completely out of the air - if the difference is a rig sounding like Yet Another Hifi, versus being 'convincing', then for some people large numbers like that may seem right. Because the system is not actually "better". That 1% is actually transitioning from 99 to to the necessary 100 "points of competence", because the last key degrading "point of weakness" has been resolved. Why this happens is because the human hearing system demands a certain standard of accuracy before allowing itself to be fooled - anything below the standard is immediately rejected; anything above permits an illusion to be sustained.
  2. I don't think the fact they project sound front and back makes much difference to causing the stand to react to the diaphragm moving. As a thought experiment, lower the frequency down to a visible back and forth rocking of greater amplitude - is the frame not going to respond? The elements may have lower mass, but they are applying pressure to the air; which creates the sound. For equivalent volume from a cone speaker there will equivalent back pressure from the air being vibrated, in the panel speaker - ideally, the frame needs to remain perfectly still at all times.
  3. By the same logic the frame of a panel speaker should be locked into position; if I were to have one of these types of speakers one of the first experiments I would do is to add bracing such that the frame became rigid with respect to the room - conceptually, the frame becomes immensely massive.
  4. fas42

    Blind Results Surprising But Not Really

    My understanding is soap opera effect is getting rid of the juddering when something is panning relatively quickly on the screen. Since real life movement doesn't present itself in a rapidly jerking manner, making you aware of a frame rate limitation artifact, I find it more natural to see smooth motion presentations. Strange colour rendering occurs irrespective of the 'speed' of what happens on the screen - a "talking head" where the skin colour has the Red pumped up is obviously askew, as contrasted by external shots of people on the same channel, or switching to another channel.
  5. fas42

    Is Digital Audio A Mature Science?

    Religion intrudes into most people's viewpoints on audio - the 'right' people have looked at it, and the 'right' studies have been done on it, and thus it becomes a tenet of faith. OTOH, if talking of speakers, a microscopic adjustment somewhere is obviously going to be audible - these devices fall into the "everything matters!!" category ... .
  6. fas42

    Blind Results Surprising But Not Really

    Getting all the settings right on even a cheap panel TV makes all the difference ... sound familiar? I note how the displays one comes across these days, in homes and shopping, always have a 'fake' look to the image; which is because the colours are not right, as simple as that. Spend the time as Alex mentions to fine tune each and every parameter, and the end result is, again, worth it: no matter what's on the screen the colours and tonality always strike one as being correct - and when the TV station does stupid things to 'push' the colours, it's so obvious - one of the morning shows are a good example of this, everyone's "pinkified".
  7. fas42

    Is Digital Audio A Mature Science?

    Seriously, in one sense, yes. Components as currently manufactured are almost never designed or implemented well enough for our ears not to pick obvious deficiencies - if that wasn't the case, swapping DACs or amplfiers wouldn't always be detectable, as most here find out in their travels. If the field of audio implementation was mature, such changing would be relatively low level in its impact. In another sense, all audio playback is very amateur. People like playing with it, like people like gardening - commercial growers OTOH want a very precise set of circumstances set up, so that they know how much food they will produce, how to account for most contingencies; the whole shebang is 'professional' - getting the latter attitude in audio will 'solve' all the silly issues, and people can get on with "enjoying the music".
  8. fas42

    Is Digital Audio A Mature Science?

    The objectivists love playing the "You're refuting physics!" nonsense - they run away and hide when concepts like system integrity are mentioned - not micro-detail enough!!
  9. fas42

    Is Digital Audio A Mature Science?

    What's special is that the ear/brain is very sensitive to anomalies in the sound which "give the game away" - it's almost always trivially easy to pick whether sound is live playing, or audio, PA playback when you can't sight the source - or can't you pick such, marce? For those who find this a doddle, the goal can be to largely eliminate the perceptible difference - one way of doing this is to reduce the spurious artifacts in the sound which reveal all, IME. Of course, if you want reproduction to be nothing more than a somewhat impressive version of a kitchen radio then going through the hoops may not be worthwhile. For others though, what can be gained makes the effort rewarding.
  10. I promised GeneZ I would kick off this thread, but I'm feeling a bit pooped at the moment - so, I might take the lazy way out , and point to a thread on another forum where I kicked off this very conversation, 7 years ago - my posts there are just as relevant, although I'm less focused on using spikes these days. https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/how-should-speakers-be-stabilised.4239/ To sum up, for me the more rigid the speaker is mounted in its position the better, and I've never wavered from that.
  11. fas42

    Is Digital Audio A Mature Science?

    To a certain degree, yes. The hard thing to nail is the level to which one has to go, to "guarantee it's inaudible". IME, the better the system gets, the easier it is to detect the impact of extraneous noise - it's like stopping that clock from starting to bug you ...
  12. fas42

    Measurements & Sound Quality

    Good thread topic ... the obvious one for me is the transition into what I call competent sound - subjectively, this can be quite a dramatic difference, but objectively all that has happened is that the level of some distortion or noise anomaly is just a bit less than that prior to the transition. I believe any sort of conventional measurement, trying to pinpoint the key difference, would show very little of interest - specialist test signals most likely would need to be developed, to make it easier to register the change taking place. "Sense of space" or "real instruments playing in real space" are part of the package of competent playback - I wouldn't see any point in trying to separate out those, as individually 'measurable'.
  13. fas42

    Is Digital Audio A Mature Science?

    While people want to cling to the glorious belief that there are zero pathways for analogue areas of the playback chain to be affected by electrical behaviours on the "digital" side, the arguments will continue ...
  14. fas42

    Is Digital Audio A Mature Science?

    People are significantly overthinking, and overcomplicating things: all that is necessary in every variation of a rig, is for the music data to be presented to the remainder analogue circuitry so that that the latter circuitry is not impacted in any way by how the digital waveforms were generated and transferred. Unfortunately, this is harder than many people realise, hence all the carry on. Whether a CD player, USB delivery, online streaming, whatever - the analogue areas are often interfered with; very subtle at times - but enough to do the damage. If one wants to systematic about this, one could create an extremely simple system, where the music data of a single track is hard coded in just enough circuitry to enable it to be fed to the DAC - zero fanciness, anywhere. What does it sound like? Then, bit by bit, add in all the extra goodies that real world rigs normally rely upon, in the myriad variations - does the quality degrade at certain points; using certain retrieval methods. If some mechanism for sourcing the music data is shown to damage the SQ, then the answer is to improve the engineering, so that the electrical isolation is adequate.
  15. fas42

    Is Digital Audio A Mature Science?

    Which is how it's been for decades. A digital chain not fully "debugged" sucks the warmth and richness out of a track- it takes listening to a, yes, sorted rig to appreciate what the true nature of the recording is. It's not DSP that's doing the damage; directly, that is. Processing activity in any area of the system very, very easily injects interference in the analogue related circuitry; which then cripples the SQ. Very careful attention to detail can make all the difference - the sort of thinking that, say, PeterSt uses. Fear not, digital can deliver the full bundle - the technology 30 years ago could do it, as I personally found out. But only if all the i's are dotted, and all the t's are crossed ...
×