Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: musical sound

Expand Messages
  • Robert
    In the case of electrostatics, I think it comes from chaos. The vibrations of the membrane itself in the higher frequencies are chaotic in part. People like to
    Message 1 of 13 , Jun 3, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      In the case of electrostatics, I think it comes from
      chaos. The vibrations of the membrane itself in the higher frequencies
      are chaotic in part. People like to think of that thin
      membrance as moving as a unit. But it does not do this.
      It has a lot of micro0breakups running every which way.

      These average out in measurements to some extent although the top end
      of the Quads is very ragged actually compared to say the SEAS
      tweeter in the M40s. But the actual motion anywhere but the lower
      frequencies is not nearly that simple and in the higher frequencies
      the membrane is not moving as a unit at all.

      Actually it would be quite amazing if it were! Any expectation that a large membrane without any rigidity that is terminated at the edges
      could be driven so as to vibrate as a unit would be based on a complete misunderstanding of how things actually work in the real world.

      The chaos is somewhat down in level. But it is still there!

      REG
      --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, Fred <glenndriech@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > Glare as in unwanted resonances and intermodulations?
      > As might be heard from trumpets (e.g. in versions of the Aida Grand March) or that can render the natural "sheen" of violins harsh?
      >
      > Fred.
      >
      >
      > --- On Thu, 3/6/10, ymm <yipmangmeng@...> wrote:
      >
      > From: ymm <yipmangmeng@...>
      > Subject: Re: [regsaudioforum] musical sound
      > To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
      > Date: Thursday, 3 June, 2010, 10:55
      >
      > So glare is not frequency dependent but is a type of texture or coloration? Most likely heard in the midrange or low highs?
      > best,Yip
      > From: Robert <regonaudio@aol. com>
      > To: regsaudioforum@ yahoogroups. com
      > Sent: Thursday, 3 June 2010 10:08:17
      > Subject: [regsaudioforum] musical sound
      >
      >
      >
      > Of course we all agree that the neutral reproduction of timbre
      >
      > is of the essence. And that means flat, at least in the midrange
      >
      > broadly conceived.
      >
      >
      > But there are other aspects of musical sound. One thing is the absence
      >
      > of glare. Glare is not an easy thing to pin down in engineering terms.
      >
      > But it is very real and very unmusical. The one thing music does not do is glare!
      >
      >
      >
      > Audiophiles are much more tolerant of this than they should be in my opinion, many of them anyway. One of the things I really like about the Harbeth M40s is that they do no glare sonically. Of course if the recording does, they will let you know it, but they do not add any glare of their own.
      >
      >
      >
      > This is REALLY important to me. It means that when one listens to piano music, one is not constantly tormented by any dynamic level above pp.
      >
      >
      >
      > I think that in some ways this non-glare matter is at least as important, maybe more important than the microdetails of midrange balance(though of course the M40s are good on that too).
      >
      > One can EQ balance to be essentially flat. But it is hard to get
      >
      > rid of the kind of glare that arises from driver misbehavior and so on.
      >
      >
      >
      > I think this is a neglected issue. And it is one of the reasons
      >
      > that most musicians hate audio or at least do not respect it.
      >
      > So much of it glares in a way that music never does. Music can be
      >
      > bright on occasion. But not in the sense of glare.
      >
      >
      >
      > If you know what I mean by the word, great. If not, I guess I might need to expand on this a bit later.
      >
      >
      >
      > REG
      >
    • sunilm_k2
      Not sure about the differences between glare, brightness of the speaker, and brightness of the recorded sound often because of close miking. -- Sunil
      Message 2 of 13 , Jun 3, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Not sure about the differences between glare, brightness of the speaker, and brightness of the recorded sound often because of close miking.

        -- Sunil

        --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <regonaudio@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > Of course we all agree that the neutral reproduction of timbre
        > is of the essence. And that means flat, at least in the midrange
        > broadly conceived.
        >
        > But there are other aspects of musical sound. One thing is the absence
        > of glare. Glare is not an easy thing to pin down in engineering terms.
        > But it is very real and very unmusical. The one thing music does not do is glare!
        >
        > Audiophiles are much more tolerant of this than they should be in my opinion, many of them anyway. One of the things I really like about the Harbeth M40s is that they do no glare sonically. Of course if the recording does, they will let you know it, but they do not add any glare of their own.
        >
        > This is REALLY important to me. It means that when one listens to piano music, one is not constantly tormented by any dynamic level above pp.
        >
        > I think that in some ways this non-glare matter is at least as important, maybe more important than the microdetails of midrange balance(though of course the M40s are good on that too).
        > One can EQ balance to be essentially flat. But it is hard to get
        > rid of the kind of glare that arises from driver misbehavior and so on.
        >
        > I think this is a neglected issue. And it is one of the reasons
        > that most musicians hate audio or at least do not respect it.
        > So much of it glares in a way that music never does. Music can be
        > bright on occasion. But not in the sense of glare.
        >
        > If you know what I mean by the word, great. If not, I guess I might need to expand on this a bit later.
        >
        > REG
        >
      • ymm
        Are there any animated pics showing how a large loudspeaker membrane works when it is generating different frequencies and when playing a jazz combo? Ttat
        Message 3 of 13 , Jun 3, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Are there any animated pics showing how a large loudspeaker membrane works when it is generating different frequencies and when playing a jazz combo? Ttat should be interesting and help us to understand audio physics better.


          From: Robert <regonaudio@...>
          To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Thursday, 3 June 2010 21:52:28
          Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: musical sound

           


          In the case of electrostatics, I think it comes from
          chaos. The vibrations of the membrane itself in the higher frequencies
          are chaotic in part. People like to think of that thin
          membrance as moving as a unit. But it does not do this.
          It has a lot of micro0breakups running every which way.

          These average out in measurements to some extent although the top end
          of the Quads is very ragged actually compared to say the SEAS
          tweeter in the M40s. But the actual motion anywhere but the lower
          frequencies is not nearly that simple and in the higher frequencies
          the membrane is not moving as a unit at all.

          Actually it would be quite amazing if it were! Any expectation that a large membrane without any rigidity that is terminated at the edges
          could be driven so as to vibrate as a unit would be based on a complete misunderstanding of how things actually work in the real world.

          The chaos is somewhat down in level. But it is still there!

          REG

          --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, Fred <glenndriech@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > Glare as in unwanted resonances and intermodulations?
          > As might be heard from trumpets (e.g. in versions of the Aida Grand March) or that can render the natural "sheen" of violins harsh?
          >
          > Fred.
          >
          >
          > --- On Thu, 3/6/10, ymm <yipmangmeng@...> wrote:
          >
          > From: ymm <yipmangmeng@...>
          > Subject: Re: [regsaudioforum] musical sound
          > To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
          > Date: Thursday, 3 June, 2010, 10:55
          >
          > So glare is not frequency dependent but is a type of texture or coloration? Most likely heard in the midrange or low highs?
          > best,Yip
          > From: Robert <regonaudio@aol. com>
          > To: regsaudioforum@ yahoogroups. com
          > Sent: Thursday, 3 June 2010 10:08:17
          > Subject: [regsaudioforum] musical sound
          >
          >
          >
          > Of course we all agree that the neutral reproduction of timbre
          >
          > is of the essence. And that means flat, at least in the midrange
          >
          > broadly conceived.
          >
          >
          > But there are other aspects of musical sound. One thing is the absence
          >
          > of glare. Glare is not an easy thing to pin down in engineering terms.
          >
          > But it is very real and very unmusical. The one thing music does not do is glare!
          >
          >
          >
          > Audiophiles are much more tolerant of this than they should be in my opinion, many of them anyway. One of the things I really like about the Harbeth M40s is that they do no glare sonically. Of course if the recording does, they will let you know it, but they do not add any glare of their own.
          >
          >
          >
          > This is REALLY important to me. It means that when one listens to piano music, one is not constantly tormented by any dynamic level above pp.
          >
          >
          >
          > I think that in some ways this non-glare matter is at least as important, maybe more important than the microdetails of midrange balance(though of course the M40s are good on that too).
          >
          > One can EQ balance to be essentially flat. But it is hard to get
          >
          > rid of the kind of glare that arises from driver misbehavior and so on.
          >
          >
          >
          > I think this is a neglected issue. And it is one of the reasons
          >
          > that most musicians hate audio or at least do not respect it.
          >
          > So much of it glares in a way that music never does. Music can be
          >
          > bright on occasion. But not in the sense of glare.
          >
          >
          >
          > If you know what I mean by the word, great. If not, I guess I might need to expand on this a bit later.
          >
          >
          >
          > REG
          >


        • audiomayvin2000
          Hi Robert! Isn t the whole raison d etre of electrostatics that the entire membrane is energised uniformly, whereas your cute little dome tweeter is energised
          Message 4 of 13 , Jun 3, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Robert!
            Isn't the whole raison d'etre of electrostatics that the entire membrane is energised uniformly, whereas your cute little dome tweeter is energised only at the periphery(the voice coil). I would suggest that logically, the electrostatic is less prone to chaos.
            Leon

            --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <regonaudio@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > In the case of electrostatics, I think it comes from
            > chaos. The vibrations of the membrane itself in the higher frequencies
            > are chaotic in part. People like to think of that thin
            > membrance as moving as a unit. But it does not do this.
            > It has a lot of micro0breakups running every which way.
            >
            > These average out in measurements to some extent although the top end
            > of the Quads is very ragged actually compared to say the SEAS
            > tweeter in the M40s. But the actual motion anywhere but the lower
            > frequencies is not nearly that simple and in the higher frequencies
            > the membrane is not moving as a unit at all.
            >
            > Actually it would be quite amazing if it were! Any expectation that a large membrane without any rigidity that is terminated at the edges
            > could be driven so as to vibrate as a unit would be based on a complete misunderstanding of how things actually work in the real world.
            >
            > The chaos is somewhat down in level. But it is still there!
            >
            > REG
            > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, Fred <glenndriech@> wrote:
            > >
            > >
            > > Glare as in unwanted resonances and intermodulations?
            > > As might be heard from trumpets (e.g. in versions of the Aida Grand March) or that can render the natural "sheen" of violins harsh?
            > >
            > > Fred.
            > >
            > >
            > > --- On Thu, 3/6/10, ymm <yipmangmeng@> wrote:
            > >
            > > From: ymm <yipmangmeng@>
            > > Subject: Re: [regsaudioforum] musical sound
            > > To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
            > > Date: Thursday, 3 June, 2010, 10:55
            > >
            > > So glare is not frequency dependent but is a type of texture or coloration? Most likely heard in the midrange or low highs?
            > > best,Yip
            > > From: Robert <regonaudio@aol. com>
            > > To: regsaudioforum@ yahoogroups. com
            > > Sent: Thursday, 3 June 2010 10:08:17
            > > Subject: [regsaudioforum] musical sound
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > Of course we all agree that the neutral reproduction of timbre
            > >
            > > is of the essence. And that means flat, at least in the midrange
            > >
            > > broadly conceived.
            > >
            > >
            > > But there are other aspects of musical sound. One thing is the absence
            > >
            > > of glare. Glare is not an easy thing to pin down in engineering terms.
            > >
            > > But it is very real and very unmusical. The one thing music does not do is glare!
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > Audiophiles are much more tolerant of this than they should be in my opinion, many of them anyway. One of the things I really like about the Harbeth M40s is that they do no glare sonically. Of course if the recording does, they will let you know it, but they do not add any glare of their own.
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > This is REALLY important to me. It means that when one listens to piano music, one is not constantly tormented by any dynamic level above pp.
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > I think that in some ways this non-glare matter is at least as important, maybe more important than the microdetails of midrange balance(though of course the M40s are good on that too).
            > >
            > > One can EQ balance to be essentially flat. But it is hard to get
            > >
            > > rid of the kind of glare that arises from driver misbehavior and so on.
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > I think this is a neglected issue. And it is one of the reasons
            > >
            > > that most musicians hate audio or at least do not respect it.
            > >
            > > So much of it glares in a way that music never does. Music can be
            > >
            > > bright on occasion. But not in the sense of glare.
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > If you know what I mean by the word, great. If not, I guess I might need to expand on this a bit later.
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > REG
            > >
            >
          • Mitch (rzootoo)
            ... ...would suggest that logically.... One has to be a bit careful with intuitive thoughts. Just because a surface is energized uniformly doesn t also mean
            Message 5 of 13 , Jun 3, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              audiomayvin2000 wrote:
              >
              >
              > Hi Robert!
              > Isn't the whole raison d'etre of electrostatics that the entire
              > membrane is energised uniformly, whereas your cute little dome tweeter
              > is energised only at the periphery(the voice coil). I would suggest
              > that logically, the electrostatic is less prone to chaos.
              > Leon
              >
              "...would suggest that logically...." One has to be a bit careful with
              intuitive thoughts. Just because a surface is energized uniformly
              doesn't also mean that it has the necessary rigidity to function as a
              completely uniform surface while in motion. I can easily imagine that a
              large surface might not operate as a completely rigid diaphragm while
              changing direction 5,000 or 10,000 times a second.

              It would seem, with the proper equipment, the ability of a small dome
              and a large electrostatic membrane to act as rigid pistons without
              breakup would not be hard to check. Perhaps REG could enlighten us.

              - Mitch
            • Robert
              This is wrong, that the membrane is less prone to chaos. In fact, the high frequency vibration of the large membrane is very chaotic indeed. In fact, there is
              Message 6 of 13 , Jun 3, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                This is wrong, that the membrane is less prone to chaos.
                In fact, the high frequency vibration of the large membrane
                is very chaotic indeed. In fact, there is chaos at all frequencies
                but at lower ones it is a small part of the sound.

                A small object like a dome tweeter has a chance ot vibrating as a unit. But a flexible membrane does not. The force on it cannot be absolutely uniform and the edge termination is surely not uniform in any real sense. Agitating such a membrane even if the agitation is reasonably uniform will result in a whole lot of micro vibrational modes.

                Actually you can see this on deep waterfall plots(the 60 dB ones)
                and even in the frequency response plots. If the thing moved with true uniformity it would have smooth response. But in fact the high frequency response of an electrostatic is extremely IRREGULAR in its microstructure.

                People think electrostats have a nice top because they are so beamy that they often have rather little top at all. But they are definitely not behaving very well.

                Of course one has to form one's own impression of how much this aspect of hwo they work bothers one, if at all. But they are definitely not operating as anything like a piston at any higher frequency. The idea that an edge-restrained membrane will
                operate at a piston anything but quite low frequencies is way off the mark. Chaos tends not to appear in THD measurements, because it is low level and not harmonically related to the signal. It is noise.
                But if you look at the waterfall here
                http://www.regonaudio.com/Arion%20Essex.html
                for the Quads you will see that it is wildly chaotic in the upper frequencies. Also in the impulse response you can see tons of garbage. The Spendor SP 9 is not phase linear but it is much freer in its impulse of garbage. Phase corrected it actually looks quite nice.
                And that is not even the cleanest box speaker around. SImilarly the SP1/2 is also less garbage filled.

                How audible is this? Your call, but do not be fooled into believing that one can vibrate a flexible membrane at 10kHz with chaotic behavior. That is not happening!

                Actually, you can see the chaos of the membrane visually if you light it up tangentially. A whomp of some kind will cause little ripples that you can see!

                REG



                --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Mitch (rzootoo)" <mitch@...> wrote:
                >
                > audiomayvin2000 wrote:
                > >
                > >
                > > Hi Robert!
                > > Isn't the whole raison d'etre of electrostatics that the entire
                > > membrane is energised uniformly, whereas your cute little dome tweeter
                > > is energised only at the periphery(the voice coil). I would suggest
                > > that logically, the electrostatic is less prone to chaos.
                > > Leon
                > >
                > "...would suggest that logically...." One has to be a bit careful with
                > intuitive thoughts. Just because a surface is energized uniformly
                > doesn't also mean that it has the necessary rigidity to function as a
                > completely uniform surface while in motion. I can easily imagine that a
                > large surface might not operate as a completely rigid diaphragm while
                > changing direction 5,000 or 10,000 times a second.
                >
                > It would seem, with the proper equipment, the ability of a small dome
                > and a large electrostatic membrane to act as rigid pistons without
                > breakup would not be hard to check. Perhaps REG could enlighten us.
                >
                > - Mitch
                >
              • bomanmadsen
                I have been thinking a lot about REG s measurements and writing about the high frequency response of Quad ELS-63. I am the happy owner of a pair of ELS-63,
                Message 7 of 13 , Jun 4, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  I have been thinking a lot about REG's measurements and writing about the high frequency response of Quad ELS-63.

                  I am the happy owner of a pair of ELS-63, which I use together with Acourate and closed corner woofers.

                  I think my system is able to reproduce a piano very close to the real thing.

                  But I use ELS-63 without grille and dust cover.

                  The dust cover is two extra membranes, one on each side, these two extra membranes will - perhaps - amplify the measured chaotic behavior.

                  I think they play a lot better without grille and dustcover.

                  Has anyone made waterfall measurements without grille and dustcover?



                  --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <regonaudio@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > This is wrong, that the membrane is less prone to chaos.
                  > In fact, the high frequency vibration of the large membrane
                  > is very chaotic indeed. In fact, there is chaos at all frequencies
                  > but at lower ones it is a small part of the sound.
                  >
                  > A small object like a dome tweeter has a chance ot vibrating as a unit. But a flexible membrane does not. The force on it cannot be absolutely uniform and the edge termination is surely not uniform in any real sense. Agitating such a membrane even if the agitation is reasonably uniform will result in a whole lot of micro vibrational modes.
                  >
                  > Actually you can see this on deep waterfall plots(the 60 dB ones)
                  > and even in the frequency response plots. If the thing moved with true uniformity it would have smooth response. But in fact the high frequency response of an electrostatic is extremely IRREGULAR in its microstructure.
                  >
                  > People think electrostats have a nice top because they are so beamy that they often have rather little top at all. But they are definitely not behaving very well.
                  >
                  > Of course one has to form one's own impression of how much this aspect of hwo they work bothers one, if at all. But they are definitely not operating as anything like a piston at any higher frequency. The idea that an edge-restrained membrane will
                  > operate at a piston anything but quite low frequencies is way off the mark. Chaos tends not to appear in THD measurements, because it is low level and not harmonically related to the signal. It is noise.
                  > But if you look at the waterfall here
                  > http://www.regonaudio.com/Arion%20Essex.html
                  > for the Quads you will see that it is wildly chaotic in the upper frequencies. Also in the impulse response you can see tons of garbage. The Spendor SP 9 is not phase linear but it is much freer in its impulse of garbage. Phase corrected it actually looks quite nice.
                  > And that is not even the cleanest box speaker around. SImilarly the SP1/2 is also less garbage filled.
                  >
                  > How audible is this? Your call, but do not be fooled into believing that one can vibrate a flexible membrane at 10kHz with chaotic behavior. That is not happening!
                  >
                  > Actually, you can see the chaos of the membrane visually if you light it up tangentially. A whomp of some kind will cause little ripples that you can see!
                  >
                  > REG
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Mitch (rzootoo)" <mitch@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > audiomayvin2000 wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > Hi Robert!
                  > > > Isn't the whole raison d'etre of electrostatics that the entire
                  > > > membrane is energised uniformly, whereas your cute little dome tweeter
                  > > > is energised only at the periphery(the voice coil). I would suggest
                  > > > that logically, the electrostatic is less prone to chaos.
                  > > > Leon
                  > > >
                  > > "...would suggest that logically...." One has to be a bit careful with
                  > > intuitive thoughts. Just because a surface is energized uniformly
                  > > doesn't also mean that it has the necessary rigidity to function as a
                  > > completely uniform surface while in motion. I can easily imagine that a
                  > > large surface might not operate as a completely rigid diaphragm while
                  > > changing direction 5,000 or 10,000 times a second.
                  > >
                  > > It would seem, with the proper equipment, the ability of a small dome
                  > > and a large electrostatic membrane to act as rigid pistons without
                  > > breakup would not be hard to check. Perhaps REG could enlighten us.
                  > >
                  > > - Mitch
                  > >
                  >
                • Tom Mallin
                  Perhaps I m mistaken, but I think the tests which REG was referring to in terms of the Quad s inability to accurately reproduce piano were tests conducted by a
                  Message 8 of 13 , Jun 4, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I think the tests which REG was referring to in terms of the Quad's inability to accurately reproduce piano were tests conducted by a print magazine a few years ago.  In those tests, the large Quad electrostatic had problems reproducing the properly high levels of sound to mimic a piano heard from quite close up.  If anyone can find that test on the Web, please provide a link.
                     
                    I don't know how important this sort of test is for home listening.  I suspect that many folks do not reproduce piano music at home at anything like the level that a concert grand piano would generate if the piano were in your listening room and being played by a professional.  The Quads might be quite capable of producing concert hall levels if by that you mean the SPL you would hear in a large hall if you are seated ten or more rows back.
                     
                    But when I hear a piano with an SPL close to what the player would hear when I sit in the first row of the hall or attend a living room concert, the sound can be thunderous and extremely dynamic.  In such situations, I am no more than five or ten feet from the open lid of the piano.  I could see how Quads would have difficulty mimicking that kind of close-up piano sound. 

                    >>> "bomanmadsen" <larsbmadsen@...> 6/4/2010 10:23 AM >>>
                    I have been thinking a lot about REG's measurements and writing about the high frequency response of Quad ELS-63.

                    I am the happy owner of a pair of ELS-63, which I use together with Acourate and closed corner woofers.

                    I think my system is able to reproduce a piano very close to the real thing.

                    But I use ELS-63 without grille and dust cover.

                    The dust cover is two extra membranes, one on each side, these two extra membranes will - perhaps - amplify the measured chaotic behavior.

                    I think they play a lot better without grille and dustcover.

                    Has anyone made waterfall measurements without grille and dustcover? 

                     

                  • Robert
                    The Quads participated in the test reported on by HiFI News done by Musical Fidelity of live versus reproduced. I agree completely that there is no need--in
                    Message 9 of 13 , Jun 4, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      The Quads participated in the test reported on by HiFI News done
                      by Musical Fidelity of live versus reproduced.

                      I agree completely that there is no need--in fact there is a sort of negative need(since it would be way loud) to reproduce at home in a small room the sound of a concert grand played full out. That sound
                      is of course designed to fill concert halls, not to be heard from close up in a small room.

                      However, the fact of the matter is in my experience that the glare problem begins at far lower levels with many speakers and the Quads in particular. They just do not sound solid and right to be in the same way that the Harbeths do on piano music.

                      Is chaos the reason? I am not at all sure. This is a hard thing to pin down, what causes what audibly. The chaos is real, the listening impression is real, but that does not prove cause and effect.

                      In the end, I simply gave up on the Quads on this account. I did not sell them--ironically, I traded them to my piano technician for a rebuild of my Steinway(which would have cost quite a lot otherwise).

                      This was an impulse on her part, and in fact she never actually fastened up the speakers at home--or at least did not do so for many many years. I am not sure she has yet(this was ten years ago, and I became embarrassed asking tuning time after tuning time if she had listened to them yet at home).

                      Anyway, if piano is your thing, I would listen hard --next to a real piano--not for dynamic level but for solidity and lack of glare, with any speaker.

                      It is a tough test.

                      REG

                      --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Mallin" <tmallin@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I think the tests which REG was referring to in terms of the Quad's inability to accurately reproduce piano were tests conducted by a print magazine a few years ago. In those tests, the large Quad electrostatic had problems reproducing the properly high levels of sound to mimic a piano heard from quite close up. If anyone can find that test on the Web, please provide a link.
                      >
                      > I don't know how important this sort of test is for home listening. I suspect that many folks do not reproduce piano music at home at anything like the level that a concert grand piano would generate if the piano were in your listening room and being played by a professional. The Quads might be quite capable of producing concert hall levels if by that you mean the SPL you would hear in a large hall if you are seated ten or more rows back.
                      >
                      > But when I hear a piano with an SPL close to what the player would hear when I sit in the first row of the hall or attend a living room concert, the sound can be thunderous and extremely dynamic. In such situations, I am no more than five or ten feet from the open lid of the piano. I could see how Quads would have difficulty mimicking that kind of close-up piano sound.
                      >
                      > >>> "bomanmadsen" <larsbmadsen@...> 6/4/2010 10:23 AM >>>
                      > I have been thinking a lot about REG's measurements and writing about the high frequency response of Quad ELS-63.
                      >
                      > I am the happy owner of a pair of ELS-63, which I use together with Acourate and closed corner woofers.
                      >
                      > I think my system is able to reproduce a piano very close to the real thing.
                      >
                      > But I use ELS-63 without grille and dust cover.
                      >
                      > The dust cover is two extra membranes, one on each side, these two extra membranes will - perhaps - amplify the measured chaotic behavior.
                      >
                      > I think they play a lot better without grille and dustcover.
                      >
                      > Has anyone made waterfall measurements without grille and dustcover?
                      >
                    • laurie483000
                      Point taken about the audibility of box colourations in well designed speakers (Gradient tests). I also acknowledge the difference between resonances
                      Message 10 of 13 , Jun 6, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Point taken about the audibility of box colourations in well designed speakers (Gradient tests). I also acknowledge the difference between resonances (predictable) and (random) chaotic noise in diaphragms.

                        It would be interesting to be able to compare the random noise aspect of metal v good soft dome tweeters - maybe I'll try some web searches. The former seem to have the reputation of smooth and low resonant behaviour below the main peak, but this peak usually in the high 20s (inaudible) is conversely quite pronounced. This showed quite clearly in the response curve of the Harbeth C7 Mklll in a fairly recent Hifi News review. Not much, if any, mention was made of it though and the review was pretty complementary all round.

                        I suppose one of the reasons that the larger HL5 box has a supertweeter is to allow for this resonance to be filtered out. I wonder how this configeration compares (ignoring the 'BBC' style balance of the '5s') with the upmarket SEAS soft dome of the M30 - I imagine that both are fairly expensive solutions. Alan Shaw has said before that he likes the predictly good performance of metal domes and I remember Robin Marshall a respected UK speaker man (whose name I haven't come across lately) being very fond of them too, but Derek Hughes for one, seems to keep generally ignore them in his speaker designs. My limited experience tends to favour soft domes, but I can't speak with any real authority.

                        I imagine ribbons have some of the membrane characteristics of electrostatics, but my impression coming only from what I've read, is that they can have a smoother treble. I wonder if any chaotic noise there, might add a slight etched out / detailed character - not always unattractive.


                        Laurie



                        --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <regonaudio@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > This is wrong, that the membrane is less prone to chaos.
                        > In fact, the high frequency vibration of the large membrane
                        > is very chaotic indeed. In fact, there is chaos at all frequencies
                        > but at lower ones it is a small part of the sound.
                        >
                        > A small object like a dome tweeter has a chance ot vibrating as a unit. But a flexible membrane does not. The force on it cannot be absolutely uniform and the edge termination is surely not uniform in any real sense. Agitating such a membrane even if the agitation is reasonably uniform will result in a whole lot of micro vibrational modes.
                        >
                        > Actually you can see this on deep waterfall plots(the 60 dB ones)
                        > and even in the frequency response plots. If the thing moved with true uniformity it would have smooth response. But in fact the high frequency response of an electrostatic is extremely IRREGULAR in its microstructure.
                        >
                        > People think electrostats have a nice top because they are so beamy that they often have rather little top at all. But they are definitely not behaving very well.
                        >
                        > Of course one has to form one's own impression of how much this aspect of hwo they work bothers one, if at all. But they are definitely not operating as anything like a piston at any higher frequency. The idea that an edge-restrained membrane will
                        > operate at a piston anything but quite low frequencies is way off the mark. Chaos tends not to appear in THD measurements, because it is low level and not harmonically related to the signal. It is noise.
                        > But if you look at the waterfall here
                        > http://www.regonaudio.com/Arion%20Essex.html
                        > for the Quads you will see that it is wildly chaotic in the upper frequencies. Also in the impulse response you can see tons of garbage. The Spendor SP 9 is not phase linear but it is much freer in its impulse of garbage. Phase corrected it actually looks quite nice.
                        > And that is not even the cleanest box speaker around. SImilarly the SP1/2 is also less garbage filled.
                        >
                        > How audible is this? Your call, but do not be fooled into believing that one can vibrate a flexible membrane at 10kHz with chaotic behavior. That is not happening!
                        >
                        > Actually, you can see the chaos of the membrane visually if you light it up tangentially. A whomp of some kind will cause little ripples that you can see!
                        >
                        > REG
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Mitch (rzootoo)" <mitch@> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > audiomayvin2000 wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > Hi Robert!
                        > > > Isn't the whole raison d'etre of electrostatics that the entire
                        > > > membrane is energised uniformly, whereas your cute little dome tweeter
                        > > > is energised only at the periphery(the voice coil). I would suggest
                        > > > that logically, the electrostatic is less prone to chaos.
                        > > > Leon
                        > > >
                        > > "...would suggest that logically...." One has to be a bit careful with
                        > > intuitive thoughts. Just because a surface is energized uniformly
                        > > doesn't also mean that it has the necessary rigidity to function as a
                        > > completely uniform surface while in motion. I can easily imagine that a
                        > > large surface might not operate as a completely rigid diaphragm while
                        > > changing direction 5,000 or 10,000 times a second.
                        > >
                        > > It would seem, with the proper equipment, the ability of a small dome
                        > > and a large electrostatic membrane to act as rigid pistons without
                        > > breakup would not be hard to check. Perhaps REG could enlighten us.
                        > >
                        > > - Mitch
                        > >
                        >
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.