$ony Quality

[randycat99]

Again you haven't backed up ANY of your theories then you make ALOT of assumptions to TRY and make your nonsubstantiated theories sound true. Where's YOUR proof? I've already provided my sources whether you consider it marketing or not. Many many speaker manufacturers are making the same discoveries.

Should I need to find proof that the sky is blue? This is all quite in the realm of common audio knowledge, honestly. You think I'm trying to pull a fast one on you? Have I said anything that is utterly outlandish? Don't believe me- fine. Just don't be shocked to find the emperor is wearing no clothes, though. He hasn't for a long time.

Your source, OTOH, was a "whitepaper" intended to generate interest in a specific product. Proof, indeed!

BTW you don't know ANYTHING about audio equipment. Most good EQs have a S/N ratio of over 100db mine goes past 110

Most audio equipment can have very good S/N ratio. EQ's, OTOH, are typically the worst offenders, unless they are very, very simple in functionality.

Have you ever heard of constant Q? 20kHz only my friend.

Constant Q, eh? So that implies you have no control over Q. The Q is preset. Essentially, the EQ function you have is exactly the same as virtually everybody else who has an "EQ" (only yours has a rather oddball center frequency at 20 kHz)- constant Q is not that "special" in the least. For all you know, your 20 kHz adjustment is effecting the entire 10-20 kHz range. Makes a lot of sense why you do hear a difference with cymbals, none of which points at ultrasonics as the explanation. Perhaps you thought it was "infinite Q"? What would even be the point of an "infinite Q" filter, let alone if that is even implementable? You are premising an infinite resonance at a single frequency- arguably comparable in "trouble" as a metal dome tweeter in a bad breakup mode. Way to make use of a "50 kHz Supertweeter" by putting an intentional spike right at 20 kHz. Do you have any concept at all of how messed up your phase response would be if you really had an infinite Q 20 kHz spike?

Where did you get you laws of physics from? Where's your source? Yeah that's what I thought. Do you have a phd in acoustic science?

You are seriously running out of ammo here. Basically, all you have left is "I don't believe what you are telling me." You have no reasoned logic to present in counterpoint, just denial. Furthermore, you don't need a PhD in acoustic science to figure this out (though I imagine you feel that if you can "hear" something associated with your equipment purchases that puts your views on an equally authoritive level as one?). An engineering degree is quite sufficient. We haven't even discussed anything that really lies in hardcore acoustics science (did you realize that or did you assume it was naturally applicable?). Don't get upset at me over this bitter pill. Just acknowledge there is an entirely other side of the story to consider here.

Everything is marketing to you because you can't admit that you're wrong with outdated theories. Until you can prove otherwise you're just spewing BS

It's really not hard to pick out "marketing" when you understand the topic. Otherwise, I do understand how you would find this a quandry. No BS spewing from you at all, right?

50db of ambient room noise my ass...sorry but I don't live by the freeway man

You really think 50 dB is that "loud"? Clearly you have no concept of range here. So why bother to argue it?

Try listening to some classical man. Don't know where you get your loudness BS. You must listen to Eminem

Now that is just plain insulting. I don't like Eminem at all. I do listen to some classical, so I got you covered there. Additionally, my musical tastes are not just limited to classical. Is this comment in regard to when I mentioned "loudness curve"? If so, your response is especially comedic. You evidently haven't the slightest inkling of how the loudness curve fits in to all of this, do you?

Blame it on marketing when you can't find substantiated evidence to prove otherwise...typical

If you had some knowledge on the topic, you wouldn't have trouble giving reasoned counterpoint to the implications I presented to you, now would you? Just enjoy your system for what it gives you. I ask nothing less of you.

 

[PC-Engine]

Hehe you still haven't provided any sources...

Why are you dodging this? The sky is blue sounds like an excuse more than anything. What law of phyics specifically states what you've been spewing? If it's so common knowledge then why don't you just provide the proof? It's supposedly common knowledge right? I've done a search and haven't found any info about what you're talking about. YOUR credibility is on the line not mine. Yes you've provided another side to the topic, but the question is how valid is your infor? Until I see some evidence in the form of a similar whitepaper with reseach done by experts, I'll just consider you side of the story baseless.

The proof I've provided was a whitepaper that's partially based on research done by others not just speaker manufacturers so is very relevent so much that you don't have anything to refute it.

BTW do a search on constant Q. You might learn something you think you already know

And the loudness remark pertains to dynamic range or lack there in that type of music

If you think you know what you're talking about then please provide sources to back up your argument...very simple really.

 

[randycat99]

I can find a website that "proves" the Holocaust never happened, too. Also that evolution is impossible, and another one that says the site that says evolution is impossible is wrong point-for-point. That would seem to say that having found something on the Internet that you agree with is not proof at all, just evidence that you found something that says something you agree with. Maybe it makes you feel better about your position, but do you really "understand" it to agree with it? Does it stand up to scrutinization and questioning when presented? Are you able to articulate responses based on your understanding of the cited article? If you are unable to do any of that, then how can you champion the integrity of the article? Presenting an article w/o having any idea whatsoever how to defend it has got to be THE worst way to have a discussion. Having links and articles certainly are a good thing, but first and foremost, have a clue about the thing you are discussing in the first place. Otherwise you have no idea what you are citing or how relevant, factual, or marketing-based the material is.

I haven't cited anything because, frankly, I know what I know. I reasoned through all of the points you put forth. Your responses showed you really didn't have a good handle over the topic to begin with. It's no skin off my nose if you choose to completely deny what I have presented here.

...but if you wish, you can cite a specific point I was making, and I will do my best to find you a link on it. We can build from there. How's that? Mind you, I won't find evidence of points that you have misinterpreted (accidentally or otherwise). I will clarify the point that spawned your misunderstanding and then work from there.

 

[PC-Engine]

...but if you wish, you can cite a specific point I was making, and I will do my best to find you a link on it. We can build from there. How's that?

Ok a very simple request. The white paper proves the importance of frequencies above 20kHz with current research. Now can you prove that it's not important with current research? I'm not talking about theories about how humans can't hear above 20kHz etc. That has already been proven wrong in many instances. Also the paper states that phase distortion is decreased with a supertweeter. Can you prove otherwise? Oh and please don't answer with the same convenient "marketing" excuse.

BTW I rarely ever use the "loudness" button when listening to classical

 

[randycat99]

BTW I rarely ever use the "loudness" button when listening to classical

This flew right over your head once again. No, I wasn't referring to using a "loudness" button.

 

[PC-Engine]

BTW I rarely ever use the "loudness" button when listening to classical

This flew right over your head once again. No, I wasn't referring to using a "loudness" button.

The loudness button is based on the principle that humans are less sensitive to high and low frequencies at low volumes hence the inclusion of the loudness function. If that's not what you were referring to when you mentioned the "loudness curve" then what are you talking about? Please clarify, I'm not a mindreader.

 

[randycat99]

If you aren't using the loudness button, that means your ability to hear the frequency extremes will be compromised depending on how high a volume you have chosen to listen to the material. So you have to "turn it up" to even out the nonlinearities in the human ear. Not just turn it up to be "kind of loud"- to experience reasonable sensitivity out to 20 kHz, you need to go out to levels approaching and exceeding 120 dB! At that point, you will probably be experiencing tinuitus shortly. So you will be back to some degree of deafness, and you hope it will be temporary. Not much gained there, except in the first 5 minutes or so.

Anything below that 120 dB and those 20 kHz-ish signals will need to be significantly higher in level over the midrange and low treble area to be "perceptible". That wouldn't be a problem if music actually contained spectrums of that nature. However, they typically don't. A "natural balance" of sound typically involves a falling frequency spectrum as you go higher in frequency. What you get in the end is a lot of that really high frequency stuff gets masked by the louder frequency components lower in the range in virtually any naturally sounding material you can find. The point is, hearing higher and higher frequencies beyond 10 kHz gets to be a progressively difficult exercise. Actually getting to 20 kHz is on the verge of futile. 50 kHz? Well, it certainly doesn't get better. In essence, the loudness curve can be pretty antagonistic to the goal of hearing ultrasonics when listening at sane volumes. Not only does the high frequency stuff have to be louder than the rest of the lower material, it must be louder by *a lot*. If it isn't, you probably won't hear it.

I'm still working on your other stuff. Can't guarantee it will hold my interest for too long to bother.

 

[randycat99]

The white paper proves the importance of frequencies above 20kHz with current research.

That's where you are jumping to conclusions. It didn't "prove" anything with regard to "importance". It alluded to some level of "detection" with regard to a pseudo-random noise signal. It did not correlate that to any actual "music listening" situation, where "importance" would be relevant. Presumably a test to evaluate "importance" would involve actual music-based signals that people listen to for pleasure, not random test signals which are decidedly less pleasurable to listen to. Worse yet, the whitepaper also hinges around the "Oohashi" article, which is most certainly "in dispute", and arguably was debunked almost a decade ago. That in of itself places the whitepaper credibility in severe jeopardy. One only wonders why they chose to cite that as a source, given the controversy. A different study would have avoided that, but alas, undisputed studies that support the ultrasonic bandwidth theory are far and few to come by (maybe even nonexistent).

Now can you prove that it's not important with current research?

Not really necessary, since it wasn't "proven" to be important in the whitepaper- only cited to be detectable under specific conditions atypical to listening to real music material. The "current research" has been shown to be fallible in part, at least. Perhaps, I can look into finding a link that gives technical discussion as to why the Oohashi article has "problems". Similarly, referring to some hearing tests of real people should be sufficient to place even the "detectable" issue in doubt.

Also the paper states that phase distortion is decreased with a supertweeter. Can you prove otherwise?

Yes the phase curves in the whitepaper do show a reduction. However, they are nonzero and drifting through much of the designated bandwidth, so the issue of ideal transient response (as a result of the purported phase and bandwidth benefits) is moot as has been pointed out to you many times already (if it isn't at zero through the target range, then it has "missed" the transient altogether). Oddly, they have been chopped off at 4 kHz. That is awfully suspicious in that it obscures where the true zero occurs (at DC) and how much it has drifted by time 4 kHz is actually reached. It also obscures the phase "wiggle" at the suspension resonance. The real "zero" may not be the "zero" that is shown here (thus the zero that is shown is something other than zero- possibly in the realm of 90 degrees, instead). In addition to all of this, the amplitude graphs look all too "perfect" in their smoothness. Real response traces are typically more bumpy. That brings to question if the phase response was "derived" from the smoothed amplitude responses or are they displayed as they were measured? It can make all the difference as to how they are derived and how zero is referenced. Graphs can "lie" just as much as they can "tell the truth" (out of omission of details). So there you go- the very article you supplied also gave the proof that not everything is being presented on the up-and-up.

UPDATE: The responses are actually those of "filters" and the amplitudes are in volts. Is this to mean that these are not measurements of the actual tweeters, at all? That is *very* disconcerting! Possibly what is shown here are simply 2 filter models that "simulate" the amplitude and phase response of the actual tweeter components. If that is true, talk about omitting the grimy details! Something just got very stinky in this whitepaper!

 

[PC-Engine]

If you aren't using the loudness button, that means your ability to hear the frequency extremes will be compromised depending on how high a volume you have chosen to listen to the material. So you have to "turn it up" to even out the nonlinearities in the human ear. Not just turn it up to be "kind of loud"- to experience reasonable sensitivity out to 20 kHz, you need to go out to levels approaching and exceeding 120 dB! At that point, you will probably be experiencing tinuitus shortly. So you will be back to some degree of deafness, and you hope it will be temporary. Not much gained there, except in the first 5 minutes or so.

Well the reason why I don't use it is because when I do listen to music at low volume levels, I know I'm missing a lot of details, but that's ok, I expect that. However when I really want to enjoy a near live concert, I listen to my music at volume levels similar to a live orchestral symphony. Have you ever been to a live symphony? If yes then you have an idea of how loud I listen to my music when I'm in that particular mood.

Regarding the phase error, I think the purpose of the supertweeter is to reduce it not eliminate it. What you're talking about is perfect phase response which isn't going to happen and isn't what is claimed. The speaker manufacturers are pursuing better phase accuracy throught the use of a supertweeter. In other words having it is better than not.

Also I don't see anything that's abnormal about the 4kHz cutoff point. The phase accuracy approaches zero as you move further down in frequency and is almost perfect at 4kHz so there's really no reason to extend the graph to show anything below 4kHz. The important part of the graph is in the upper frequency domain where the supertweeter is clearly superior with respect to phase accuracy. If you don't believe the graph then you might want to do some testing yourself or find an independent party to do the testing

I highly doubt the realworld performance of the supertweeter is far off from that shown in the graph. I'm sure the audiophile magazines would've found out about any dubious claims by now

Here's a quote from Hi-fi Choice:

The effect that the SuperTweeter has is, to be frank, a very strange one. As well as adding increased airiness and breadth to the high frequencies, it also manages to drop the bass floor and tighten up the midrange too. Lord knows how, but by letting the SuperTweeters handle the upper limits of your hi-fi reproduction, it's almost as if your speakers find the energy and control to make the rest of the sonic equation sound sharper and more focussed. Not brash, or bright, or wearing, but more even and controlled. They need to be matched - with some speakers and some music types a touch of brightness does creep in. But as a
relatively affordable upgrade for good speakers that you simply don't want to exchange, the benefits the ST50 can bring to your system's sound should not be ignored.

In practice the SuperTweeter output is barely audible as such, but make no mistake about the effect it has on the sound at a whole, which tends to be most apparent when it is removed from circuit. Although its contribution may be negligible when the whole system is running (it's almost inaudible even when auditioned on its own, as I discovered when I tested the stand-alone ST-200 on its own some time ago), covering the tweeter with gaffer tape has a significant and adverse effect on the sound, which becomes oddly boxy and compressed, as well as sounding less detailed and slower.

So I guess it works just as well with music as with a test signal.

 

[randycat99]

If you aren't using the loudness button, that means your ability to hear the frequency extremes will be compromised depending on how high a volume you have chosen to listen to the material. So you have to "turn it up" to even out the nonlinearities in the human ear. Not just turn it up to be "kind of loud"- to experience reasonable sensitivity out to 20 kHz, you need to go out to levels approaching and exceeding 120 dB! At that point, you will probably be experiencing tinuitus shortly. So you will be back to some degree of deafness, and you hope it will be temporary. Not much gained there, except in the first 5 minutes or so.

Well the reason why I don't use it is because when I do listen to music at low volume levels, I know I'm missing a lot of details, but that's ok, I expect that. However when I really want to enjoy a near live concert, I listen to my music at volume levels similar to a live orchestral symphony. Have you ever been to a live symphony? If yes then you have an idea of how loud I listen to my music when I'm in that particular mood.

Yes, I have been to a real one. As mention before, just listening to it "loud" isn't enough to guarantee hearing to 20 kHz rendition. Listening *absurdly* loud is more like it. Listening to it at volumes comparable to the real thing only ensures you are hearing the range that you would if you were at the real thing, but still subject to the loudness curve. Hoping you'll hear to 50 kHz on typical music program material places demands so great, it is virtually impractical/unfeasible. It demands far more than just having tweeters and a playback medium that can play that high.

Regarding the phase error, I think the purpose of the supertweeter is to reduce it not eliminate it. What you're talking about is perfect phase response which isn't going to happen and isn't what is claimed. The speaker manufacturers are pursuing better phase accuracy throught the use of a supertweeter. In other words having it is better than not.

Sure reduction (more like shifting in this case) is good, but elimination will be when it really makes a difference. The claim of improved transient response is completely relative then.

Also I don't see anything that's abnormal about the 4kHz cutoff point. The phase accuracy approaches zero as you move further down in frequency and is almost perfect at 4kHz so there's really no reason to extend the graph to show anything below 4kHz.

It completely obscures what is happening just below that, which would immediately clue you in that what you are looking at isn't a realistic tweeter response at all. They want to give you the suggestion that absolutely nothing funny is going to happen between 4 kHz and DC since it is so close to zero anyways. All of this is moot anyway, as it is fairly evident that these are curves from ideal LP filters, not the real tweeters. Why they chose to do this is utterly nonconducive to the goal of substantiating their point of improved phase response. There's no kinder way to put it other than, "Wake up!" If there is to be a slight of hands to fool you, this is it.

The important part of the graph is in the upper frequency domain where the supertweeter is clearly superior with respect to phase accuracy. If you don't believe the graph then you might want to do some testing yourself or find an independent party to do the testing

Yeah, if they are just electrical LP filters. That isn't much of an accomplishment then. Do you believe in magic tricks since you see them with your own eyes? Snap out of it. Clearly you want to believe what they are showing here more than you are given substantiated reason to do so. This all goes back to "zero" not being the "real zero" anymore. Eminence Front- it's a put on!

I highly doubt the realworld performance of the supertweeter is far off from that shown in the graph. I'm sure the audiophile magazines would've found out about any dubious claims by now

...and that is where you have stepped off a cliff. At the very least, a dome tweeter will contain a HP element, a resonant circuit, and a LP element (plus many more effects due to acoustics and nonlinearities) with regard to filter analogy. There is no way whatsoever you can just use a single LP response and say that is what the real tweeter would look like. That is just a patently absurd comment. The phase response of one element will drastically effect the "locations" of phase responses induced by the other elements.

Here's a quote from Hi-fi Choice:

The effect that the SuperTweeter has is, to be frank, a very strange one. As well as adding increased airiness and breadth to the high frequencies, it also manages to drop the bass floor and tighten up the midrange too. Lord knows how, but by letting the SuperTweeters handle the upper limits of your hi-fi reproduction, it's almost as if your speakers find the energy and control to make the rest of the sonic equation sound sharper and more focussed. Not brash, or bright, or wearing, but more even and controlled. They need to be matched - with some speakers and some music types a touch of brightness does creep in. But as a
relatively affordable upgrade for good speakers that you simply don't want to exchange, the benefits the ST50 can bring to your system's sound should not be ignored.

In practice the SuperTweeter output is barely audible as such, but make no mistake about the effect it has on the sound at a whole, which tends to be most apparent when it is removed from circuit. Although its contribution may be negligible when the whole system is running (it's almost inaudible even when auditioned on its own, as I discovered when I tested the stand-alone ST-200 on its own some time ago), covering the tweeter with gaffer tape has a significant and adverse effect on the sound, which becomes oddly boxy and compressed, as well as sounding less detailed and slower.

So I guess it works just as well with music as with a test signal.

You can say it sounds however you like in a magazine review. It doesn't make it true. The technical associations have a more sobering picture, however, if you can take it.

To reiterate:

UPDATE: The responses are actually those of "filters" and the amplitudes are in volts. Is this to mean that these are not measurements of the actual tweeters, at all? That is *very* disconcerting! Possibly what is shown here are simply 2 filter models that "simulate" the amplitude and phase response of the actual tweeter components. If that is true, talk about omitting the grimy details! Something just got very stinky in this whitepaper!

At this very moment, the whitepaper becomes utter toast.

 

[PC-Engine]

Yes, I have been to a real one. As mention before, just listening to it "loud" isn't enough to guarantee hearing to 20 kHz rendition. Listening *absurdly* loud is more like it. Listening to it at volumes comparable to the real thing only ensures you are hearing the range that you would if you were at the real thing, but still subject to the loudness curve. Hoping you'll hear to 50 kHz on typical music program material places demands so great, it is virtually impractical/unfeasible. It demands far more than just having tweeters and a playback medium that can play that high.

You're shifting your argument. Nobody said they can hear up to 50kHz. I said the 20kHz limit has been proven to be theoretical and in practice it's moot.

Sure reduction (more like shifting in this case) is good, but elimination will be when it really makes a difference. The claim of improved transient response is completely relative then.

Exactly! Isn't that the whole point? Speakers that roll off at 50kHz has better phase and transient response than those that roll off at 22kHz. Isn't that what I've been saying all along? The magazine reviews seem to cooberate this claim. So what happened to your claim about your laws of physics holding back technology?

Anyway you can try and poke holes in the white paper, but you really haven't brought any new evidence to the table. Your conspiracy theories are just that and hasn't proven a thing other than you disagree with a bunch of people who says a supertweeter does make a difference in practice. I'll take professional listening reviews over your theoretical BS anyday especially from someone who does not do it as a profession

Which brings us back to the same point I was making before. In practice, to my ears, it makes all your outdated theories moot even your "loudness" curve in my particular setting. You see that's the problem with theories. They work well in a vacuum, but in the real world you have to take into account many factors then the whole picture changes.

BTW if you want to conclude the argument with the notion that it's all marketing hocus pocus and that I'm just another blind audiophile among many then feel free. I understand since when you're out of ammo...

 

[randycat99]

You're shifting your argument. Nobody said they can hear up to 50kHz. I said the 20kHz limit has been proven to be theoretical and in practice it's moot.

Now 50 kHz capability isn't that important anymore? Who's shifting?

Speakers that roll off at 50kHz has better phase and transient response than those that roll off at 22kHz. Isn't that what I've been saying all along?

No, this statement isn't invariably true (despite what a graph showing 2 theoretical LP filter responses shows you). Nor is it quantified if the "improvement" is even perceptible as such. The phase response is dependent on the characteristics of a specific driver, not what the upper limit is rated at. New levels in transient performance will only be significant once we start working with drivers that truly have phase responses that remain appreciably close to zero and remain constant. In the meantime, the best you can really hope for with regard to transient response is a "well-behaved" response. Your comment is completely reliant on the idea that "bigger numbers are always better". You should know better by now that things are not that simple.

The magazine reviews seem to cooberate this claim. So what happened to your claim about your laws of physics holding back technology?

Of course, you have no concept of the current state of audio-rags as far as factual relevance, do you? It's a dead market. The only thing left is to make "rave" reviews of the next thing to buy (imagine a magazine industry based on 3.5" floppy drives news). The Journal of the Audio Engineering Society is probably the last vestige of real progress, but that is a might bit stuffy for coffee table reading. My claim was that dome breakup modes for metal domes are pretty much stranded at 22-25 kHz. That doesn't mean response extension has to die there. Metals typically have a nasty breakup so typically response doesn't go much farther than that. Other drivers may use softer materials that break-up earlier, but since it is fairly well damped, response can extend considerably further with some tweaking. Of course, once you have the first break-up mode, phase is pretty much all over the map, so you don't necessarily get the transient performance you would expect for the "increased" frequency extension, anyway. Arguably you are better off with a well-behaved metal dome that covers the audio range quite accurately. No where did I say 50 kHz was impossible to achieve. One only needs to distinguish how well it is achieved. That was my claim, and it still holds true despite your 50 kHz supertweeter. Now if we could only get them them to reveal the real phase response of their supertweeter, that would be an interesting discussion.

Anyway you can try and poke holes in the white paper, but you really haven't brought any new evidence to the table. Your conspiracy theories are just that and hasn't proven a thing other than you disagree with a bunch of people who says a supertweeter does make a difference in practice. I'll take professional listening reviews over your theoretical BS anyday especially from someone who does not do it as a profession

Try? It really wasn't difficult. This whitepaper wasn't really that "white". Of course, if it supports your preconceptions, how could they not be telling the God's honest truth, right? "Professional" listening reviews? This guy put tape over a tweeter and calls that a "test"? Did he do any level matching? Any measurements at his listening position? Any blind A/B testing? Any measurements to even confirm there was ultrasonic material on the SACD/DVD-A he played (was it even SACD/DVD-A?)? There is very little to distinguish this from any other run-of-the-mill subjective test that the average Joe could perform and come up with any number of observations. External factors and biases are completely uncontrolled. ...but if it supports your preconceptions, how could they not be telling the God's honest truth, right?

Which brings us back to the same point I was making before. In practice, to my ears, it makes all your outdated theories moot even your "loudness" curve in my particular setting.

My theories aren't outdated at all- just well established over time. They simply don't support your outlandish theories. Loud is a range, not a single point. So just because you are playing it "loud" doesn't automatically make the loudness curve not apply. You choose to believe it doesn't apply to justify your purchases, though. I suppose the day you get that hearing test and find out how compromised you really are, you will simply say that test doesn't "apply" to you because you have your own set of theories.

You see that's the problem with theories. They work well in a vacuum, but in the real world you have to take into account many factors then the whole picture changes.

...and if you haven't noticed already, the real world case for a lot of things is often even more pragmatic than the theoretical case. Are you hearing this? The "real" case is often worse than the theoretical case, so that doesn't help you out, at all. My car "theoretically" has 160 hp. Does that mean it really does?

BTW if you want to conclude the argument with the notion that it's all marketing hocus pocus and that I'm just another blind audiophile among many then feel free. I understand since when you're out of ammo...

"out of ammo"? Gee, what an original remark for this discussion. It seems you pick up on the cues I give you just as easy as you read a magazine and believe whatever is printed inside- a bit susceptible to suggestion, are we? I'm curious- just what sort of claims could you read in an audio magazine and have you cry out, "BS!" Where is that threshold for you? ...or are you susceptible to anything as long as it appears in your favorite magazine? Seriously, this would be a good reality check for you.

 

[PC-Engine]

Now 50 kHz capability isn't that important anymore? Who's shifting?

It's important in many ways and among them is harmonics that are audible well past 20kHz and close to the 30kHz range. The other benefits of a 50kHz roll off are transient response and phase errors. Please stop shifting the argument to make yourself sound more correct.

No, this statement isn't invariably true (despite what a graph showing 2 theoretical LP filter responses shows you). Nor is it quantified if the "improvement" is even perceptible as such. The phase response is dependent on the characteristics of a specific driver, not what the upper limit is rated at. New levels in transient performance will only be significant once we start working with drivers that truly have phase responses that remain appreciably close to zero and remain constant. In the meantime, the best you can really hope for with regard to transient response is a "well-behaved" response. Your comment is completely reliant on the idea that "bigger numbers are always better". You should know better by now that things are not that simple.

It's basically your opinion versus that of the whole speaker manufacturing industry. Please let go of your old ways of thinking and adopt new research that prove otherwise. It's futile.

Try? It really wasn't difficult. This whitepaper wasn't really that "white". Of course, if it supports your preconceptions, how could they not be telling the God's honest truth, right? "Professional" listening reviews? This guy put tape over a tweeter and calls that a "test"? Did he do any level matching? Any measurements at his listening position? Any blind A/B testing? Any measurements to even confirm there was ultrasonic material on the SACD/DVD-A he played (was it even SACD/DVD-A?)? There is very little to distinguish this from any other run-of-the-mill subjective test that the average Joe could perform and come up with any number of observations. External factors and biases are completely uncontrolled. ...but if it supports your preconceptions, how could they not be telling the God's honest truth, right?

The guy reviews speakers for a living and has heard hundreds of models. I trust his judgement more than yours. What have you to offer other than scepticism based on unsubstantiated theories? Have you done any testing yourself period? No, because you have too much faith in your old ways of thinking and are unwilling to admit that others have observed significant improvements contrary to what you and your theories think is impossible. Just a simple example, psychoacoustic model theory. Great theory, but does it have limitations? Of course it does like any other theory for that matter. It's based on normal human hearing. Does everyone have different levels of hearing? Of course and there will always be exceptions. Some people can't even hear the difference between a good analog tape recording from a CD

My theories aren't outdated at all- just well established over time. They simply don't support your outlandish theories. Loud is a range, not a single point. So just because you are playing it "loud" doesn't automatically make the loudness curve not apply. You choose to believe it doesn't apply to justify your purchases, though. I suppose the day you get that hearing test and find out how compromised you really are, you will simply say that test doesn't "apply" to you because you have your own set of theories.

It's nice to know that you know more about my listening habits, capabilites, and environment more than myself

No theories on my behalf, just practice in the realworld not in a vacuum

...and if you haven't noticed already, the real world case for a lot of things is often even more pragmatic than the theoretical case. Are you hearing this? The "real" case is often worse than the theoretical case, so that doesn't help you out, at all. My car "theoretically" has 160 hp. Does that mean it really does?

It can go both ways or have you not noticed? It depends on how up to date your theories are. Theories are updated ammended modified all the time. I like to be up to date on things. You should try it

I'm curious- just what sort of claims could you read in an audio magazine and have you cry out, "BS!" Where is that threshold for you? ...or are you susceptible to anything as long as it appears in your favorite magazine? Seriously, this would be a good reality check for you.

I have my own methods unfortunately your info is just less credible relative to what I've read so far on the subject. Feel free to provide some up to date reading material that says otherwise.

 

[randycat99]

It's important in many ways and among them is harmonics that are audible well past 20kHz and close to the 30kHz range. The other benefits of a 50kHz roll off are transient response and phase errors. Please stop shifting the argument to make yourself sound more correct.

After participating in this entire length of discussion, you've gone full circle and are simply repeating what you thought at the start. You've learned nothing. What a pity. First you say no one needs to hear to 50 kHz, then you turn around and say 50 kHz is important to hear harmonics. Never mind how you can "hear" these harmonics that are inherently quieter than their fundamental and deep, deep, deep into the loudness curve at these ultrasonic frequencies... You've sewn this chain of inconsistent rationalizations and now you are just tripping over them left and right with the implications while trying to engender new rationalizations. Have you any idea how foolish this looks?

It's basically your opinion versus that of the whole speaker manufacturing industry. Please let go of your old ways of thinking and adopt new research that prove otherwise. It's futile.

No, it is basic theory of speaker operation. Try cracking open a book on the topic instead of relying on fluffy magazine reviews and "whitepapers". How do you earthly know what the "whole speaker manufacturing industry" is saying to come up with your comment? You don't. All you have is one manufacturer that seemingly would disagree with me by virtue of the particular product they are selling. What do you think they are going to say, "Ya know, truthfully we don't have any idea why you need our tweeter. We just know it goes pretty high and will sound pretty good in your system." Of course not. They want to sell you one, hence the marketing. Do you believe everything a car salesman tells you when you walk on their lot eyeing their product line? Some things will be true, others you know are BS. This isn't about new theory and old theory. We are talking about stuff that is patently marketing fodder and basic physics.

The guy reviews speakers for a living and has heard hundreds of models. I trust his judgement more than yours.

I'm sure he "knows" things he would never put in a review after auditioning those 100's of models, too (if he wants continued business, that is). You'd be surprised all the good things you can find to say if you get to keep a demo model for every story you write. It's a business- pure and simple. Does this guy have any measurement equipment at all? Are there any measurements posted in his review? If not (a sure sign of a 2-bit operation), all he can give you is a subjective thumbs up or down. He has no capability to verify that certain technical claims are truly being met or not. The quick method to spot BS is when they start using the colorful verbage to vary the way they can say, "It sounds good!" When they start expounding clever analogies to describe "new levels" in sound purity, stuff that has no form of objective measurement, you know you have stepped into the "cheap rag zone".

What have you to offer other than scepticism based on unsubstantiated theories?

I don't think basic physics is such a bad foundation. I could similarly accuse you of severe gullibility for the wild and fantastic. So your continuing with "your old theories are outdated" dogma won't raise your credibility in the slightest. Just say you disagree, refuse to hear any further reason (from me), and close it there. Very simple.

Some people can't even hear the difference between a good analog tape recording from a CD

Are you insinuating that I can't? Of course, I can. The benefits lie clearly in the audible range in this case. SACD and supertweeters are a different regime altogether.

It's nice to know that you know more about my listening habits, capabilites, and environment more than myself

I know of general listening habits, capabilities, and environments. I enjoy music listening as well, you realize. Are you implying your habits and setup are atypical? Do you think nobody else listens to their music loudly? Considering that earlier you had absolutely no concept of what a 50 dB ambient noise rating is like, one can only wonder what you consider is "loud".

No theories on my behalf, just practice in the realworld not in a vacuum

Lucky me! I've got both, and I understand how they inter-relate.

It can go both ways or have you not noticed? It depends on how up to date your theories are. Theories are updated ammended modified all the time. I like to be up to date on things. You should try it

Yeah, if you consider the latest magazine review a "good" source for theory. Basic physics tend to remain pretty static because they are "correct" to begin with- they don't change and amend monthly. (We are dealing with basic physics here, not Cosmic String theory and sub-atomic particle physics) Magazines are good to keep up on new stuff, OTOH. No harm in that. In fact, it is entertaining. Essentially, it is just that- entertaining reading. Who woulda thunk?

I have my own methods unfortunately your info is just less credible relative to what I've read so far on the subject. Feel free to provide some up to date reading material that says otherwise.

PC-Engine- meet the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society...with monthly issues from March 2003 all the way back to the early 1900's (not typically available at your local city library and certainly not a newstand). You got a whoooole lotta reading ahead of you! Also consider any college textbook on mechanical vibrations and acoustics. Reading a "stereo mag" you picked up out of Barnes & Nobles for "theory" is akin to getting your education off the back of a cereal box. Entertaining, to be sure, not so great on substance.

 

[PC-Engine]

After participating in this entire length of discussion, you've gone full circle and are simply repeating what you thought at the start. You've learned nothing. What a pity. First you say no one needs to hear to 50 kHz, then you turn around and say 50 kHz is important to hear harmonics. Never mind how you can "hear" these harmonics that are inherently quieter than their fundamental and deep, deep, deep into the loudness curve at these ultrasonic frequencies... You've sewn this chain of inconsistent rationalizations and now you are just tripping over them left and right with the implications while trying to engender new rationalizations. Have you any idea how foolish this looks?

Um..thanks for completely ignoring what I just said to make your argument seem more valid. Audible past 20kHz my friend...which means it can be 30kHz, or 35kHz, or 40kHz etc. No one said hearing a 50kHz signal is possible. The 50kHz is just the extended roll off point get it? Extending the roll off point decreases phase errors and produces better transient response get it? Better than a tweeter with a roll off at 22kHz got it? Not only is it better for SACD and DVD Audio but even regular CDs benefit from phase accuracy and transient response.

No, it is basic theory of speaker operation. Try cracking open a book on the topic instead of relying on fluffy magazine reviews and "whitepapers". How do you earthly know what the "whole speaker manufacturing industry" is saying to come up with your comment? You don't. All you have is one manufacturer that seemingly would disagree with me by virtue of the particular product they are selling. What do you think they are going to say, "Ya know, truthfully we don't have any idea why you need our tweeter. We just know it goes pretty high and will sound pretty good in your system." Of course not. They want to sell you one, hence the marketing. Do you believe everything a car salesman tells you when you walk on their lot eyeing their product line? Some things will be true, others you know are BS. This isn't about new theory and old theory. We are talking about stuff that is patently marketing fodder and basic physics.

Yes BASIC theory from many decades ago. Current technology has negated a lot of those same theories. Theories can be proven wrong or are you not aware of that?

I'm sure he "knows" things he would never put in a review after auditioning those 100's of models, too (if he wants continued business, that is). You'd be surprised all the good things you can find to say if you get to keep a demo model for every story you write. It's a business- pure and simple. Does this guy have any measurement equipment at all? Are there any measurements posted in his review? If not (a sure sign of a 2-bit operation), all he can give you is a subjective thumbs up or down. He has no capability to verify that certain technical claims are truly being met or not. The quick method to spot BS is when they start using the colorful verbage to vary the way they can say, "It sounds good!" When they start expounding clever analogies to describe "new levels" in sound purity, stuff that has no form of objective measurement, you know you have stepped into the "cheap rag zone".

I'm sure there are other full reviews that offer graphs etc. out there. Many magazines do measurements. The snippet from the one I posted was just a short summary. Pick up a copy of Stereophile and you can read all the measurements you want.

I know of general listening habits, capabilities, and environments. I enjoy music listening as well, you realize. Are you implying your habits and setup are atypical? Do you think nobody else listens to their music loudly? Considering that earlier you had absolutely no concept of what a 50 dB ambient noise rating is like, one can only wonder what you consider is "loud".

Audiophiles get their name for a reason. Oh and who says I don't know what 50dB of ambient noise is like? You? That's a really comedic comment man typical to put yourself in a better light. My home has about 30dB of ambient noise. Oh did you know that a pair of headphones sometimes comes with a little dB chart to warn the consumer of dangerous sound levels?

Here's a chart I found.

Comparative Noise Levels (dB)

Saturn rocket 200
Walkman ½ volume 94
MD80 takeoff - 1,500 ft. altitude 85
dialtone 80
talking at 3 feet 65
quiet urban daytime 50
quiet urban nighttime 40
quiet rural nighttime 25

PC-Engine- meet the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society...with monthly issues from March 2003 all the way back to the early 1900's (not typically available at your local city library and certainly not a newstand). You got a whoooole lotta reading ahead of you! Also consider any college textbook on mechanical vibrations and acoustics. Reading a "stereo mag" you picked up out of Barnes & Nobles for "theory" is akin to getting your education off the back of a cereal box. Entertaining, to be sure, not so great on substance.

But can you cite something from there that says otherwise regarding supertweeter manufacturers and dubious claims? Probably not.

 

[randycat99]

Um..thanks for completely ignoring what I just said to make your argument seem more valid. Audible past 20kHz my friend...which means it can be 30kHz, or 35kHz, or 40kHz etc. No one said hearing a 50kHz signal is possible. The 50kHz is just the extended roll off point get it?

Hey, if you think 30, 35, 40 kHz is hearable, why not 50? Why stop there? 60, 70, 100 kHz? The higher you go, the more transient effect, right? Where do you draw the line?

Extending the roll off point decreases phase errors and produces better transient response get it?

Completely inconclusive. What is happening to the phase response prior to the roll-off? Prior to the point where the tweeter output has reached the lower operating frequency? If the phase is way off from the start, then everything at higher frequencies will be thrown off by a similar amount. You can't seem to grasp this because you are fixated on 2 bogus filter curves you see in a graph.

Better than a tweeter with a roll off at 22kHz got it? Not only is it better for SACD and DVD Audio but even regular CDs benefit from phase accuracy and transient response.

It all depends on the break-up behavior throughout the range. It could be better or way, way worse. We'll never know in your 50 kHz case because they substituted the measured response of the real tweeter with completely simplified filter curves (akin to pointing to an "artist rendition" of a illegal chemical plant).

Yes BASIC theory from many decades ago. Current technology has negated a lot of those same theories. Theories can be proven wrong or are you not aware of that?

You seem fixated that anything old is automatically obsolete and "wrong". In this case, there is nothing wrong with the basic theory. Unfortunately, basic theory doesn't make for interesting news to sell a product. That is why marketing was invented. Does basic arithmetic get changed in theory because you are not happy with the amount of money in your bank account? That is what you are you proposing here.

I'm sure there are other full reviews that offer graphs etc. out there. Many magazines do measurements. The snippet from the one I posted was just a short summary.

Not very good material to demonstrate the expertise of a professional reviewer then, eh? How about you find one of those graphs? Afraid that could put your presss-ioussss whitepaper in a different light?

Pick up a copy of Stereophile and you can read all the measurements you want.

It doesn't surprise me all the krazy ideas in your head if you hold Stereophile on a pedestal. They are the kings of audiophile "spin" at the moment. Are you completely unaware of their advertiser-driven magazine format?

Audiophiles get their name for a reason. Oh and who says I don't know what 50dB of ambient noise is like? You?

You did liken it to living next to a freeway. Not the best response to demonstrate your knowledge of the issue.

That's a really comedic comment man typical to put yourself in a better light.

Was your freeway comment to be meant as a joke or not? Who's being comedic?

My home has about 30dB of ambient noise.

Riiiight. You must live alone, in the boonies, where absolutely no weather occurs, along with a dearth of any modern appliances/furnishings such as refrigerators, computers, or AC (and no furnaces or fireplace for cold winters). Of course, you have 20 dB advantage over virtually everyone else. Everything is "better" in your setup. It doesn't matter much, I suppose. Your system still has to make 140 dB of output to render the full range of SACD (I gave you a 10 dB grace, earlier). The bright side is that your amps and speakers only need to deal with several kW's of power instead of MW's. Oh, and I imagine the ambiance in all of your recordings must be quite muted being that they are being played in such an isolated and dead listening space that actually achieves 30 dB of ambient noise.

Oh did you know that a pair of headphones sometimes comes with a little dB chart to warn the consumer of dangerous sound levels?

Here's a chart I found.

Comparative Noise Levels (dB)

Saturn rocket 200
Walkman ½ volume 94
MD80 takeoff - 1,500 ft. altitude 85
dialtone 80
talking at 3 feet 65
quiet urban daytime 50
quiet urban nighttime 40
quiet rural nighttime 25

Well I'm glad you learned something after all of this. I suppose that since you have a "card" with that information now, that those are now hard, immutable numbers for any and all incidents of urban and rural accomodations?

But can you site something from there that says otherwise regarding supertweeter manufacturers and dubious claims? Probably not.

I'd say nearly a century's worth of journals raises the probability quite a bit. Would I want to sift through it to "prove" something to you, who seems completely unresponsive to reason? What's the point, I ask? Tripping you up simply on the material you have provided here is about as far as I would bother. So can you just agree to disagree already?

 

[PC-Engine]

Hey, if you think 30, 35, 40 kHz is hearable, why not 50? Why stop there? 60, 70, 100 kHz? The higher you go, the more transient effect, right? Where do you draw the line?

You're either really dense or make a living by dodging facts. The white paper says the listeners can readily hear the 30kHz 10dB peak that they were trying to cancel in the crossover. Selective memory? Not a suprise.

Completely inconclusive. What is happening to the phase response prior to the roll-off? Prior to the point where the tweeter output has reached the lower operating frequency? If the phase is way off from the start, then everything at higher frequencies will be thrown off by a similar amount. You can't seem to grasp this because you are fixated on 2 bogus filter curves you see in a graph.

Sure is better than what you have to offer so far.

You seem fixated that anything old is automatically obsolete and "wrong". In this case, there is nothing wrong with the basic theory. Unfortunately, basic theory doesn't make for interesting news to sell a product. That is why marketing was invented. Does basic arithmetic get changed in theory because you are not happy with the amount of money in your bank account? That is what you are you proposing here.

No it's not automatically obsolete, however in this particular case it is unless you can prove otherwise

Not very good material to demonstrate the expertise of a professional reviewer then, eh? How about you find one of those graphs? Afraid that could put your presss-ioussss whitepaper in a different light?

Go to your local bookstore and pick up a copy of Stereophile or something similar. It's only $5

It doesn't surprise me all the krazy ideas in your head if you hold Stereophile on a pedestal. They are the kings of audiophile "spin" at the moment. Are you completely unaware of their advertiser-driven magazine format?

Um Stereophile is one among many other audio review magazines. Choose whichever magazine you prefer. The quality ones have graphs

BTW 99% of magazine have ads so I don't know what planet you live on.

You did liken it to living next to a freeway. Not the best response to demonstrate your knowledge of the issue. Was your freeway comment to be meant as a joke or not? Who's being comedic?

That was a sacastic comment if you didn't get it the first time. However living by the freeway will probably produce about 60dB of ambient noise not that far off from 50dB

Riiiight. You must live alone, in the boonies, where absolutely no weather occurs, along with a dearth of any modern appliances/furnishings such as refrigerators, computers, or AC (and no furnaces or fireplace for cold winters). Of course, you have 20 dB advantage over virtually everyone else. Everything is "better" in your setup. It doesn't matter much, I suppose. Your system still has to make 140 dB of output to render the full range of SACD (I gave you a 10 dB grace, earlier). The bright side is that your amps and speakers only need to deal with several kW's of power instead of MW's. Oh, and I imagine the ambiance in all of your recordings must be quite muted being that they are being played in such an isolated and dead listening space that actually achieves 30 dB of ambient noise.

Again I'm glad you know more about my living space more than I do

Oh I forgot you know everything since your theories work outside a vacuum too in every and all situations taking into account all factors.

I'd say nearly a century's worth of journals raises the probability quite a bit. Would I want to sift through it to "prove" something to you, who seems completely unresponsive to reason? What's the point, I ask? Tripping you up simply on the material you have provided here is about as far as I would bother. So can you just agree to disagree already?

How utterly convenient. No suprise really...doesn't help your case does it? And to make this console related...GAME OVER!

 

[London Geezer]

not to sound rude.... but isn't this a console forum??? how did a *sony quality* thread become a *whatever u're talking about* thread?

just ignore me...

 

[Thowllly]

Just read this in a post on Slashdot:

Stereophile refuses to perform double-blind testing and have been taken in by hoax after hoax. They swore that coloring the edge of a CD green (with a product called "CD Stoplight") improved the sound. I used to subscribe but got sick of the $400 speaker cables, magic line cords, and other unscientific "tweaks."

If Stereophile never does double-blind tests, then their product tests are pretty much worthless.

 

[PC-Engine]

Just read this in a post on Slashdot:

Stereophile refuses to perform double-blind testing and have been taken in by hoax after hoax. They swore that coloring the edge of a CD green (with a product called "CD Stoplight") improved the sound. I used to subscribe but got sick of the $400 speaker cables, magic line cords, and other unscientific "tweaks."

If Stereophile never does double-blind tests, then their product tests are pretty much worthless.

Isn't it convenient that you found that post on the 15th of Mar right after Stereophile was mentioned here?

Don't like Stereophile? Pick another audio review magazine, very simple really

Keep trying.

BTW when was that post created? Hmmm....

Someone is really desparate to gain some credibility.