"Stevie Boy" wrote in message
...


Maybe not dynamic range, but what is "depth" in the context of audio?

Depth: The amount the sound seems to eminate from behind the speakers
therefore giving a much more space perspective sound which gives a good
feeling of distance & out of the box experience.
This is not to say that anything that should have a specific point in
place is destroyed by depth.
Any sound that breaks away from appearing from a speaker sounds more
enjoyable to me.

Surely this is a function of the recording? A simply-miked recording played
back *at the right volume level* can portray depth, but a close-miked
pan-potted recording just won't.



Neutrality: Where a sound is reproduced as accurately as possible
without emphasis of any frequency.
In other words as life like as possible.

The two statements are not synonymous. Lack of emphasis of any frequency
means a flat frequency response, with no sharp peaks or troughs,
especially peaks. "As life like as possible" implies not only a flat
response, but also low distortion and accurate dispersion characteristics
which, when the room acoustics are included, result in an accurate
representation of the recorded event. The closest approach to the
original sound anyone?

That's why it's life like as POSSIBLE. Cheaper gear cannot benefit from
all good measurements but can stab at mimmicking them.
The closest approach to the original sound is much more dependant on
source quality + recordings therefore is not quite the same.

Bass weight: A stronger representation of the lows as if it were a
larger speaker.

How does this differ from extention?


Extention implies that a frequency goes lower but clearly unless the
crossover is designed to allow this it does not.

Crossover design has normally nothing to do with bass extension. The bottom
end of a passive loudspeaker's response is left to roll off naturally, the
frequency at which it does so is a function of driver and cabinet. The
passive crossover will act at the upper end of the woofer's response range,
rolling it off and rolling in the mid-range or tweeter depending on design.
Active crossovers, on the other hand, can provide a degree of equalisation
of the bottom end, achieving a response equivalent to a much larger
enclosure, albeit at the expense of power handling. In other words, all
things being equal, you can go deep or you can go loud, you can't do both.
Successful active designs, like Meridian's, balance these two carefully and
manage to go satisfyingly loud *and* deep by good engineering.


This is primarily a function of the room, together with the dispersion
characteristics of the loudspeakers.

Crumbs I agree :-)

I doubt it. Active crossovers, especially DSP derived, are the best way
of achieving accurate results. (or screwing things up royally!)

Going active is more of a dream & has been for many a year, it's a
expensive route to take & requires lots of shelf space. This was not my
intention at all. If it proves a pointless exercise in rebuilding the
crossovers then I probably won't do anything at all, apart from putting a
improved tweeter in & amending the crossover circutry to complent (not my
designing mind you!).

Be careful when changing tweeters and crossover design, unless you're happy
to experiment. A change may not necessarily be an improvement. I'd want to
see some measurements to show just *how* the change improves things.
Subjective impressions may be just a case of different=better.



No, I don't think so unless you can measure the actual performance of
each drive unit individually, then design the crossover accordingly. If
you're going to that sort of effort, an active crossover would be a lot
less trouble.


People have done this whom in the know so it would be just a case of
buying & fitting although not with my actual speakers!

Steve

Good luck. Loudspeakers are a fascinating area for experimentation, but can
easily drive you mad unless you have some solid measurements to ground
subjective impressions.

S

--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

Rob wrote:

I do find that valve amplification and a vinyl source create (recreate?!) a
sense
of space, making sound more like music.

Oh Dear ! More voodoo and magic !

Maybe a poorer signal to noise ratio, a crummier frequency response and lots more
distortion DO sound more like music ?

It's certainly not what I've striven for over the years in my designs though.

Graham

"Rob" wrote in message
...
Serge Auckland wrote:
"Stevie Boy" wrote in message
...

snip leaving rigid definition part


Neutrality: Where a sound is reproduced as accurately as possible
without emphasis of any frequency.
In other words as life like as possible.

The two statements are not synonymous. Lack of emphasis of any frequency
means a flat frequency response, with no sharp peaks or troughs,
especially peaks. "As life like as possible" implies not only a flat
response, but also low distortion and accurate dispersion characteristics
which, when the room acoustics are included, result in an accurate
representation of the recorded event. The closest approach to the
original sound anyone?


If the OP had added that accurate meant 'original', and that emphasis
meant change, would that have cheered you up?

And 'an accurate rendition' of an 'original' need not represent
'lifelike'. If someone thinks an oboe sounds more like an oboe with
certain things added or taken away from the original recorded sound (as
opposed to the performance), is that not more lifelike, and hence neutral?


Bass weight: A stronger representation of the lows as if it were a
larger speaker.

How does this differ from extention?


Perhaps it does mean extension, although not necessarily linearly.

Imaging: placing voices & instruments at a point in space.

Soundstaging: How a performance fills the room, does the sound feel it
is in the room (if so does it fill the whole room or sound as if it is
confined to within the speaker listening positions), confined towards
the speakers or eminating from the speakers!

This is primarily a function of the room, together with the dispersion
characteristics of the loudspeakers.


Room a big factor no doubt, but often not practical to remedy. I do find
that valve amplification and a vinyl source create (recreate?!) a sense of
space, making sound more like music. Just thought I'd mention it ;-)

Rob

Now that electronics have reached the present level of perfection, the room
is the single biggest factor affecting accurate sound reproduction.

I find myself amazed that we're collectively prepared to spend thousands on
new amplifiers, CD players etc, let alone silly money on cables or mains
conditioners, when we're not willing to put in some basic acoustic
treatment. Maybe it's the low WAF, or maybe we're not artistic enough to
make the stuff look acceptable, or maybe it's a bit more difficult to brag
down at the pub that I've just bought a new bass trap.

Whatever the reason, we throw money at equipment without tackling first what
the equipment is going to work into, i.e. the room. I have visited several
friends with what would otherwise be very good systems, to find that the
sound is dire due to poor loudspeaker positioning (e.g. QUAD ELS63s in
corners) poor acoustics (bare tiled floor, minimalist decor), large
'speakers in tiny rooms for hi-fi when the TV is in the large room, stereo
'speakers at different heights on top of furniture, and don't get me started
on people's surround-sound efforts. Get the room right *first* using a
modest system, then upgrade.

Rant over! Merry Christmas
S.


--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

Serge Auckland wrote:

Rant over! Merry Christmas

Leave the christians out of it please ! They merely hijacked our wid-winter
festival.

God Jul !

Graham

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Serge Auckland wrote:

Rant over! Merry Christmas

Leave the christians out of it please ! They merely hijacked our
wid-winter
festival.

God Jul !

Graham

What's religion got to do with Christmas? Isn't it a celebration of the fat
old man dressed in red (used to be green) that brings us presents?

Happy Saturnalia.

S


--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 15:08:17 -0000, "Serge Auckland"
wrote:

Depth: The amount the sound seems to eminate from behind the speakers
therefore giving a much more space perspective sound which gives a good
feeling of distance & out of the box experience.
This is not to say that anything that should have a specific point in
place is destroyed by depth.
Any sound that breaks away from appearing from a speaker sounds more
enjoyable to me.

Surely this is a function of the recording? A simply-miked recording played
back *at the right volume level* can portray depth, but a close-miked
pan-potted recording just won't.

It's got to be IN the recording. But surely you're not suggesting
poor speaker quality and placement can't sabotage it? And if bad
placement can destroy depth, good placement can enable it.

Eeyore wrote:

Rob wrote:

I do find that valve amplification and a vinyl source create (recreate?!) a
sense
of space, making sound more like music.

Oh Dear ! More voodoo and magic !

Maybe a poorer signal to noise ratio, a crummier frequency response and lots more
distortion DO sound more like music ?


Perhaps :-)

It's certainly not what I've striven for over the years in my designs though.


No, that'd be daft. If design involved listening (which I very much
doubt in the mainstream, even with speakers) we might be at a very
different place ...

Rob

Rob wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Rob wrote:

I do find that valve amplification and a vinyl source create (recreate?!) a
sense of space, making sound more like music.

Oh Dear ! More voodoo and magic !

Maybe a poorer signal to noise ratio, a crummier frequency response and lots more
distortion DO sound more like music ?

Perhaps :-)

It's certainly not what I've striven for over the years in my designs though.

No, that'd be daft. If design involved listening (which I very much
doubt in the mainstream, even with speakers) we might be at a very
different place ...

As it happens I DO listen to my circuits, especially EQ circuits (and reverb
algorithms). But that has little to do with hi-fi reproduction and everything to do
with music production.

Graham

Serge Auckland wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...
Serge Auckland wrote:
"Stevie Boy" wrote in message
...
snip leaving rigid definition part

Neutrality: Where a sound is reproduced as accurately as possible
without emphasis of any frequency.
In other words as life like as possible.
The two statements are not synonymous. Lack of emphasis of any frequency
means a flat frequency response, with no sharp peaks or troughs,
especially peaks. "As life like as possible" implies not only a flat
response, but also low distortion and accurate dispersion characteristics
which, when the room acoustics are included, result in an accurate
representation of the recorded event. The closest approach to the
original sound anyone?

If the OP had added that accurate meant 'original', and that emphasis
meant change, would that have cheered you up?

And 'an accurate rendition' of an 'original' need not represent
'lifelike'. If someone thinks an oboe sounds more like an oboe with
certain things added or taken away from the original recorded sound (as
opposed to the performance), is that not more lifelike, and hence neutral?


Bass weight: A stronger representation of the lows as if it were a
larger speaker.
How does this differ from extention?

Perhaps it does mean extension, although not necessarily linearly.

Imaging: placing voices & instruments at a point in space.

Soundstaging: How a performance fills the room, does the sound feel it
is in the room (if so does it fill the whole room or sound as if it is
confined to within the speaker listening positions), confined towards
the speakers or eminating from the speakers!
This is primarily a function of the room, together with the dispersion
characteristics of the loudspeakers.

Room a big factor no doubt, but often not practical to remedy. I do find
that valve amplification and a vinyl source create (recreate?!) a sense of
space, making sound more like music. Just thought I'd mention it ;-)

Rob

Now that electronics have reached the present level of perfection, the room
is the single biggest factor affecting accurate sound reproduction.

I find myself amazed that we're collectively prepared to spend thousands on
new amplifiers, CD players etc, let alone silly money on cables or mains
conditioners, when we're not willing to put in some basic acoustic
treatment. Maybe it's the low WAF, or maybe we're not artistic enough to
make the stuff look acceptable, or maybe it's a bit more difficult to brag
down at the pub that I've just bought a new bass trap.

Whatever the reason, we throw money at equipment without tackling first what
the equipment is going to work into, i.e. the room. I have visited several
friends with what would otherwise be very good systems, to find that the
sound is dire due to poor loudspeaker positioning (e.g. QUAD ELS63s in
corners) poor acoustics (bare tiled floor, minimalist decor), large
'speakers in tiny rooms for hi-fi when the TV is in the large room, stereo
'speakers at different heights on top of furniture, and don't get me started
on people's surround-sound efforts. Get the room right *first* using a
modest system, then upgrade.


Well, I'm not amazed. The little I've read on the subject seems to
indicate a need to make and understand measurement, extensive listening
with a range of music (and films etc), and converting living space into
some sort of sound box. The act/art of compromise is also tricky. Do you
have a favoured book/web resource you could point me to?

I've just plonked some Castle Harlech* speakers in my front room - they
shouldn't work, but on a lot of music they sound splendid.

Rant over! Merry Christmas
S.

Pick it up in the new year! Merry xmas to you and all.

Rob

* at my local dealer, £300, leaving me nowhere to go :-)

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:25:08 +0000, Rob
wrote:

I've just plonked some Castle Harlech* speakers in my front room - they
shouldn't work, but on a lot of music they sound splendid.

What DON'T they sound splendid on? Can you analyse why?