Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Mini Comparison - Vibe (1st gen), C700, PK2, RE0, NE-7M, PFE, ER4S, OK1, TF10, UM3X, SE530, IE8
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mini Comparison - Vibe (1st gen), C700, PK2, RE0, NE-7M, PFE, ER4S, OK1, TF10, UM3X, SE530, IE8 - Page 6

post #76 of 142
Saying someone is full of crap may be calling like you see it, but if everyone went around saying exactly what was on their minds no matter what, we'd be in even worse shape than we are today. I don't feel that phrase is extremely offensive, for example, I've said it to friends many, many times. But in a post on a forum, it sort of does come off as a bit self-important, particularly in an esoteric discussion about ethereal topics like sound stage and IEM burn-in. I mean, is there some absolute truth here? Doubtful.

So be all means, be yourself. But if someone says, "Hey, did you know that I can put an IEM in one ear and pull it out of the other," then you can certainly say they are full of ****.

But when it comes to debating issues such as sound stage and burn-in, well, who has a lock on the "truth"? Statistics can be called facts, within reason, but hardly are they necessarily truth. So calling someone out in that way just seems not really telling it like it is, but more just being hostile for no valid reason.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ngsm13 View Post
I just call it how I see it, when I see it.

Sorry if that seems out of line, it's just who I am. I try not to sugar-coat things, and I'm usually the one to say things that other people may be thinking... but never put into words.

I don't mean to come off as extremely offensive, maybe... more thought provoking. Also, the internet and a keyboard do not portray sarcasm or anything of the sort...

But yeah, I'm a sarcastic ******* who usually speaks what I think.

Just laying that out on the line.

nG
post #77 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvw2 View Post
oarnura, a driver reproduces a wave pattern.
Oh wow! I didn't know that.. thanks for enlightening me.

Quote:
There is a certain duration of extension and return of the diaphragm. Some drivers are overly slow and sluggish. These drivers sound full, smooth, sometimes muddy and disconnected if too slow. Other drivers are very fast in attack and/or decay. You get a driver that's very punchy or very crisp in sound. The end goal is to accurately reproduce the wave signal in air pressure waves. The intensity, duration, and variation should be reproduced. The attack and decay duration is what I call "body."
OK.

Quote:
It's the time involved to produce that wave pattern. The driver recreating that wave can be overly quick, overly slow, or just right in duration. This body provides a sort of texture to the music, an area of subtle information.
There is no such thing as too quickly. The ideal driver will return to starting position instantaneously waiting to produce the next wave. The faster the driver the better. The driver doesn't have any more information that the signal sent to it.

You seem to be implying that the driver knows more information than the signal it is reproducing.


Quote:
Within this area, you get a lot of spacial information, cues that show space, location, and any other subtle information that creates differentiation between say guitar 1 and guitar 2.
Decay time has spatial cues? Do you have any technical papers explaining this?

Quote:
When done well enough, you can discern where they are, what room they're in, and what brand/model instrument they're using. When done poorly, this information isn't there or it's so skewed that the information presented is distorted and hard to distinguish.
What is done well enough the recording? The reproduction? A speaker designer can't make decisions on what is outside the realm of the speaker. The characteristics of a musical note are in the signal from the Amp.

Like you said the signal is a wave so when the Amp applies the opposite phase of the signal the driver has to come back with the least resistance.

All the information is in the signal. The fastest driver is the best driver because it does what the signal sayss. There is no law of physics that can make the driver comeback faster than the signal that is exerting the force. Especially after the driver has to over come the momentum of the positive phase and then react to the negative phase of the signal and Vice Versa

A slow decaying driver will always be more inaccurate because it has too much resistance to the signal making it slow. If the note had to be held longer the signal from the amp would do it not the driver.

Quote:
Fast attack and decay is desirable to some folks. Slow attack and decay is desirable to other folks. It depends upon taste in sound.
So when you talk of body it is just an abstract concept based on your personal preference and experience. So you really can't call it a flaw that the Phonak reacts too quickly because there is no such thing. It can on;y react to the signal it receives, there is no magical force that makes it move faster. All drivers can only offer resistance to motion which constitutes the decay characteristics.

You prefer a slow decaying speaker because that is what you are used to. So please don't make it sound so absolute that your concept of "body" of note is some how the standard.

There is a reason people use Servo technology in subwoofers to correct for the slow decay and make sure the driver reproduces the signal accurately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvw2 View Post
Frequency response is simply loudness at a specific frequency point, basically sensitivity. You toss 1 watt in and you get 90dB at 1kHz, 93dB at 4kHz, 86dB at 50Hz, etc. It's relative loudness over the frequency range. This has nothing to do with the way the note is presented other then how loud you hear it relative to notes at other frequencies.
A flat driver will provide the same SPL given the input at all frequencies. Where is that information of how the note is presented then? In the driver?
post #78 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by tstarn06 View Post
Saying someone is full of crap may be calling like you see it, but if everyone went around saying exactly what was on their minds no matter what, we'd be in even worse shape than we are today. I don't feel that phrase is extremely offensive, for example, I've said it to friends many, many times. But in a post on a forum, it sort of does come off as a bit self-important, particularly in an esoteric discussion about ethereal topics like sound stage and IEM burn-in. I mean, is there some absolute truth here? Doubtful.

So be all means, be yourself. But if someone says, "Hey, did you know that I can put an IEM in one ear and pull it out of the other," then you can certainly say they are full of ****.

But when it comes to debating issues such as sound stage and burn-in, well, who has a lock on the "truth"? Statistics can be called facts, within reason, but hardly are they necessarily truth. So calling someone out in that way just seems not really telling it like it is, but more just being hostile for no valid reason.
See edited post

nG
post #79 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by average_joe View Post

My point on the VBS was just that it is possible for IEMs to have a stage wider than the driver location. While the NE-7s do sound wider than my ears, there is a noticeable difference between them and my IE8s. My IE8s always freak me out with the door, as it the sound comes from where my door is, far off in the distance. The NE-7 doesn’t freak me out that way. With the razor sound and the NE-7, the razor cut through my head, with my IE8, it went around my head.
Finally my issue with the NE-7m soundstage has some more data. The Ne-7m has a wide left-right stage but it sounds like every thing is enclosed in a narrow but long cylinder going left to right.
post #80 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by oarnura View Post
Finally my issue with the NE-7m soundstage has some more data. The Ne-7m has a wide left-right stage but it sounds like every thing is enclosed in a narrow but long cylinder going left to right.
Yea, I guess you are right! I remember when you originally made that claim and I had too many other things stuck in my ears to listen for it, and then forgot. Plus, I think the front to back is similar to my old crappy (and now sold) IEMs, so when I first got the NE-7, the improved left right was a huge improvement! Maybe I will do more listening and try to focus on that just to confirm to myself.
post #81 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by ngsm13 View Post
See edited post

nG
Saw it, but my response was to the second post. Over and done.
post #82 of 142
INdeed.

nG
post #83 of 142
Thread Starter 
oarnura, I'm not reinventing the wheel here. Nothing I say should be awe inspiring. Sound is waves, just like waves in the ocean.

There is such a thing as too quick. This has to do with the fact that a wave is not an abrupt wall. When the diaphragm moves back and forth, it is supposed to mimic the wave shape. If the diaphragm moved instantly, it would take a long wave and turn it into a very narrow wave. You'd end up with the same amplitude but a shorter duration. You get high impact but you lose the area under the curve. The area under the curve of the wave shape is the body. The variation in shape of this wave is the texture, the subtleties in the music. You compress the duration way down by building a very fast driver, you get a light, crisp sound, but you lose the subtleties. It's like taking an ocean wave, maintain the height, but cut the thickness way down to say, a couple inches instead of a couple feet. What do you feel? You get this smack of initial contact, but there is no mass behind it. You also lose the shape of the wave. Did it have a thick leading edge, was symetric, or maybe it was a double wave inside the large wave. Information gets lost or at least compressed time wise enough that we lose some of the perception. In audio, we can't simply get rid of the body of the note. The complex shape (not a perfect sine) gives us all the small details of perception. We don't want to lose those.

On the other side, you can have too thick and everything just blends together. You can lose the independence of the wave patterns and just end up with one, congealed mess. There is a balance to this, and the balance is to best match the original source.

The driver knows nothing. It is simply there to recreate the electrical signal in the form of air pressure. It's simply a converter. Some converters just more accurately mimic the source data.

No, I have no techinical papers explaining this. I'll leave it up to you to make up your own mind and find your own data. My point is simply that a wave has a time domain and shape to it. It's not an on off switch. You need to recreate the shape in air. Attack and decay time should match the rise and fall time of the wave patterns. If it doesn't, it's messing up the original source.

The goal of a speaker designer is to build the most accurate converter possible.

Yes, a driver should be fast to react, transient, not sluggish, etc..., but it should not move faster then its reproductive source. Yes, physics can make the driver move inappropriately relative to the input signal. It is reactive, i.e. after the input, but it can still move quicker or slower then it should. For example, what happens when you overdampen a spring/damper/mass setup? If you provide a force input, the system will transmit that to the mass. However, the overly high dampening will make the mass stop sooner then what was input initially. If the goal is to exactly reproduce the input force, it stopped too quick.

Body isn't abstract because it can be seen. You can look at a wave form and see the body (area under the curve). If you were able to measure air pressure waves and map out intensity versus time, you should end up with the same curve shape and amount of body as the original electrical wave form.

Servos are seldom used in subwoofers. It has been used only on a couple of occasions. I don't know the science well enough to understand why they are not used more. The concept is neat, but I have a feeling there are underlying limitations of sorts that prevent more companies from building any.

A flat response isn't mic measured flat. Our ears have a different perception of flat. Some headphones like the ER4S and PFE(gray filter) are geared for ear flat or what one would perceive as flat. In my testing I run a pink noise track to test frequency response. Pink noise has the same intensity over the entire frequency spectrum. I run through my EQ and adjust to what I hear as flat. Some headphones need very little EQing, some a lot. In my reviews, I do note some frequency response issues with the various headphones I tested. If there's a 3dB dip at 1kHz or a 6dB spike at 10kHz, I find this out via pink noise and adjusting EQ. This is what I have to fix to end up with something that is reasonably ear flat. I don't go into great detail, but I do make small notes as I deem needed.
post #84 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvw2 View Post
oarnura, I'm not reinventing the wheel here. Nothing I say should be awe inspiring. Sound is waves, just like waves in the ocean.
It isn't ... that was my point. I was being sarcastic trying to point out that your attitude that you know it all about audio is getting old pretty fast.

Quote:
There is such a thing as too quick. This has to do with the fact that a wave is not an abrupt wall. When the diaphragm moves back and forth, it is supposed to mimic the wave shape. If the diaphragm moved instantly, it would take a long wave and turn it into a very narrow wave. You'd end up with the same amplitude but a shorter duration.
Explain to me which law of physics moves an object faster than the applied force. You do understand that the amplitude of the signal coming into the voice coil is what moves a speaker diaphragm to that amplitude right?

For a given amplitude of a signal to the voice coild the diaphragm has to move exactly that much. There is no such thing as moving too fast. There is reason driver manufacturers try to use the lightest materials for diaphragms.

What you are saying makes absolutely no sense. A long wave will become a narrow wave in what sense? amplitude or frequency? Either of those things means the driver is distorting.

Quote:
No, I have no techinical papers explaining this. I'll leave it up to you to make up your own mind and find your own data.
Are you making things up then? I asked you for some source and you tell me to look it up. Brilliant!!!

Quote:
Yes, a driver should be fast to react, transient, not sluggish, etc..., but it should not move faster then its reproductive source. Yes, physics can make the driver move inappropriately relative to the input signal.
What physics is that really? How do I make something go faster than the given input power in an oscillating system? Explain the physics behind it.


Quote:
My point is simply that a wave has a time domain and shape to it. It's not an on off switch.
But what you seem to be describing bellow is an on/off switch. It is as if you think it works as an on/off switch but claim it is a wave.

Quote:
If you provide a force input, the system will transmit that to the mass. However, the overly high dampening will make the mass stop sooner then what was input initially. If the goal is to exactly reproduce the input force, it stopped too quick.

The input signal to a speaker is a AC wave. The input signal just doesn't push the speaker out and let inertia do the the negative phase. The negative phase of the signal is also controlled by the input signal.

Damping factor prevents "overhang" in a typical speaker system both mechanical and electrical damping is already present. But none of this has to do with a driver being "too fast".

You want the system to stop when the signal stops. That is why you damp. There is no such thing as over damping. Because a driver diaphragm moving without an input signal is not reproducing the input signal.

You seem to be arguing that a diaphragm should continue to move when the signal stops to provide some so called fictional "body" to a note.

There is no such thing as over damping either.

Quote:
Servos are seldom used in subwoofers. It has been used only on a couple of occasions. I don't know the science well enough to understand why they are not used more. The concept is neat, but I have a feeling there are underlying limitations of sorts that prevent more companies from building any.
Velodyne, Paradigm, Yamaha, Rythmik all use servos. The reason it isn't used more is almost all methods of doing it are patented. Some of the methods make the product very expensive.
post #85 of 142
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by oarnura View Post
It isn't ... that was my point. I was being sarcastic trying to point out that your attitude that you know it all about audio is getting old pretty fast.
I'm knowledgeable enough about the industry and science of audio. I don't claim to know everything, but I know a good bit. Head-fi is new to me but not audio itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oarnura View Post
Explain to me which law of physics moves an object faster than the applied force. You do understand that the amplitude of the signal coming into the voice coil is what moves a speaker diaphragm to that amplitude right?
This is hard to explain but easy to show in pictures, lol. I just don't have a readily easy mean to draw examples. Basically, the speaker is a reactive system. It always operates after the source input. However, it doesn't have to move at the same rate as the source input. For example, a 50Hz sine wave takes 5 milliseconds to go from 0 volts to say a peak amplitude of 5 volts. We feed this 50Hz sine wave through a driver that has a strong motor relative to its dampening. The motor is strong and chucks the cone outward. The dampening is relatively low so it doesn't provide a ton of resistance to the motion. In 3.5 milliseconds it reaches the equivalent output peak that 5 volts translates to. The slope of rise is sharper then the slope of rise of the original source wave. The diaphragm moves too fast.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oarnura View Post
For a given amplitude of a signal to the voice coil the diaphragm has to move exactly that much. There is no such thing as moving too fast. There is reason driver manufacturers try to use the lightest materials for diaphragms.
No, the diaphragm can move more or less depending on the spring/damper setup. For example a woofer with a high loss surround will actually limit cone travel on higher excursion. The side result is an overly tight bass response. It sounds controlled but is constrained also. The driver does not have to match the source wave shape. It's good if it does, but it doesn't have to and won't depending upon design.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oarnura View Post
What you are saying makes absolutely no sense. A long wave will become a narrow wave in what sense? amplitude or frequency? Either of those things means the driver is distorting.
It can become compacted because the rise and fall is artificially steep. Amplitude could be high or low depending on design. In most cases, the diaphragm motion will not be an exact copy of the shape of the source wave pattern. It would be nice if it was, but pretty much always it's not. Good hardware follows it closely. Poor hardware barely follows it at all and almost completely doesn't resemble the source wave at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oarnura View Post
Are you making things up then? I asked you for some source and you tell me to look it up. Brilliant!!!
I make up what I say, but I base it off what I learn. I am here to be helpful, to teach, and to learn. I am a fan of self-exploration, a hater of spoon feeding, and I really don't have all the time in the world to look up every little example and instance of everything I've ever learned to show others examples or specifically what I mean. This is a hobby. If one has interest, they seek to further that interest. All I can do with my sliver of time interacting with you is to convey my own findings, perceptions, and understandings. Right or wrong or in the gray, that is sometimes debatable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oarnura View Post
What physics is that really? How do I make something go faster than the given input power in an oscillating system? Explain the physics behind it.
It's really just acceleration and time relative between the source wave shape and the diaphragm acceleration/deceleration rates. It is as simple as that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oarnura View Post
But what you seem to be describing bellow is an on/off switch. It is as if you think it works as an on/off switch but claim it is a wave.
When? I was responding to you describing it like an on/off switch stating it is not but rather a rate of change over a period of time. This:

Quote:
Originally Posted by oarnura View Post
There is no such thing as too quickly. The ideal driver will return to starting position instantaneously waiting to produce the next wave. The faster the driver the better. The driver doesn't have any more information that the signal sent to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oarnura View Post
The input signal to a speaker is a AC wave. The input signal just doesn't push the speaker out and let inertia do the the negative phase. The negative phase of the signal is also controlled by the input signal.
It sort of half is. The motor pushes both ways, yes, but the mass/spring/damper system is a free moving system that is based on inertia. So yeah, you do sort of push the cone out with the motor. The problem is the motor can actually push too hard and move the cone out faster then it should to match the input source signal shape.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oarnura View Post
Damping factor prevents "overhang" in a typical speaker system both mechanical and electrical damping is already present. But none of this has to do with a driver being "too fast".
Well, yeah. You can be over or under dampened, and this will affect relative motion. It can mess with acceleration/deceleration rates and overall amplitudes. You can make the cone accelerate or decelerate too fast. By doing so, you make for quicker attack and decay. You get a shorter lighter and crisper sounding note. It sounds clean. However, if done too much, you may less accurately reproduce the smaller variations in the source wave shape.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oarnura View Post
You want the system to stop when the signal stops. That is why you damp. There is no such thing as over damping. Because a driver diaphragm moving without an input signal is not reproducing the input signal.
There is very much a thing as over dampening. It's like running a car with really high dampening. How well does it ride? Dampening is relative to the spring rate and moving mass. There is one ideal for proper movement. You can be too high or too low from this ideal and compromise the reactive accuracy of movement of the diaphragm.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oarnura View Post
You seem to be arguing that a diaphragm should continue to move when the signal stops to provide some so called fictional "body" to a note.
Two separate things. Yes, the diaphragm will move in a reactive manner to the source wave. This means that the source could be at 0 volts and the diaphragm is still moving forward, backward, or even oscillating around center.

Body is a separate thing. Body is the fatness of the wave shape. The source wave has a certain fatness to the wave. When the driver reacts to the input signal and moves the diaphragm, it should create the same shape and same fatness. Depending on setup, it's possible to not do so and make a thinner or thicker wave pattern, all depending on the relative acceleration/deceleration rates in relation to the source wave.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oarnura View Post
There is no such thing as over damping either.
There is, as was said above already.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oarnura View Post
Velodyne, Paradigm, Yamaha, Rythmik all use servos. The reason it isn't used more is almost all methods of doing it are patented. Some of the methods make the product very expensive.
Budget is one concern. I assume there are other limitations. For example, why only subwoofers? Can a servo setup even support say 1kHz rates, 10kHz rates? It relies on an accelerometer and feedback circuitry, and they need to operate fast enough to control diaphragm movement. Does it work? Sure. Is it really needed when considering effectiveness to a higher quality design? Maybe not. If you look at a standard driver that have flat BL, CMS, and Le curves, has a broad and flat frequency response, low distortion over the intended bandwidth, and lacks mechanical noise and any resonance issues, how bad can the classical way be?
post #86 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvw2 View Post
I'm knowledgeable enough about the industry and science of audio. I don't claim to know everything, but I know a good bit. Head-fi is new to me but not audio itself.
It is foolish of you to assume others know less than you. So far I am not seeing any real knowledge of audio coming from your direction. Just a lot of jargon filled verbosity.

Quote:
This is hard to explain but easy to show in pictures, lol. I just don't have a readily easy mean to draw examples. Basically, the speaker is a reactive system. It always operates after the source input. However, it doesn't have to move at the same rate as the source input. For example, a 50Hz sine wave takes 5 milliseconds to go from 0 volts to say a peak amplitude of 5 volts. We feed this 50Hz sine wave through a driver that has a strong motor relative to its dampening. The motor is strong and chucks the cone outward. The dampening is relatively low so it doesn't provide a ton of resistance to the motion. In 3.5 milliseconds it reaches the equivalent output peak that 5 volts translates to. The slope of rise is sharper then the slope of rise of the original source wave. The diaphragm moves too fast.
Inventing new physics are we? How can a driver that offers even a little resistance possibly move faster than the force that caused it to move? What new principle of physics did you discover?

A 5 volt sine wave goes for +5 to -5 volts. Like I said you think the system works like a binary system but it doesn't. The -5 volt will pull the diagram back to complete the sine wave. So there is no way the diaphragm is doing to go faster or further than the signal sent to the voice coil.

Quote:
No, the diaphragm can move more or less depending on the spring/damper setup. For example a woofer with a high loss surround will actually limit cone travel on higher excursion. The side result is an overly tight bass response. It sounds controlled but is constrained also. The driver does not have to match the source wave shape. It's good if it does, but it doesn't have to and won't depending upon design.
Explain to me how the opposite it true. You claimed that a driver can move faster than the source signal. I agree that a lossy, slow driver will be inaccurate. You made the claim that a driver can be too fast. So far you have offered no compelling explanation. You just keep reiterating the same things.


Quote:
I make up what I say, but I base it off what I learn. I am here to be helpful, to teach, and to learn. I am a fan of self-exploration, a hater of spoon feeding, and I really don't have all the time in the world to look up every little example and instance of everything I've ever learned to show others examples or specifically what I mean.
Oh please spare me! If you don't know say you don't know and are making stuff up. I asked you for a technical paper not to learn form you but to call out your BS.

You claimed decay has information to offer spatial cues. I asked you to prove it. It is obvious you can't because it is pure fiction.


Quote:
This is a hobby. If one has interest, they seek to further that interest. All I can do with my sliver of time interacting with you is to convey my own findings, perceptions, and understandings. Right or wrong or in the gray, that is sometimes debatable.
It is not debatable when someone is making up random nonsense.


Quote:
It sort of half is. The motor pushes both ways, yes, but the mass/spring/damper system is a free moving system that is based on inertia. So yeah, you do sort of push the cone out with the motor. The problem is the motor can actually push too hard and move the cone out faster then it should to match the input source signal shape.
Explain how that happens. I have asked you this many times already but you keep beating around the bush with more nonsense.

The only way that can happen is a defective voice coil. Once again this has nothing to do with a "fast" or "slow" driver.

Quote:
There is very much a thing as over dampening. It's like running a car with really high dampening. How well does it ride? Dampening is relative to the spring rate and moving mass. There is one ideal for proper movement. You can be too high or too low from this ideal and compromise the reactive accuracy of movement of the diaphragm.
This is a silly example. A car suspension is not reproducing a signal. There is no external force causing the oscillation at a particular frequency that a car should respond to. In fact, A car's shock rebound and compression damping must be really good to prevent oscillations. Undamped osicalltions leads to a bouncy ride.

In a speaker the damping has to be very high.

Quote:
Body is a separate thing. Body is the fatness of the wave shape. The source wave has a certain fatness to the wave. When the driver reacts to the input signal and moves the diaphragm, it should create the same shape and same fatness. Depending on setup, it's possible to not do so and make a thinner or thicker wave pattern, all depending on the relative acceleration/deceleration rates in relation to the source wave.
What? what is fatness of the wave. There you go again inventing new jargon. The acceleration and deceleration affects frequency. Frequency is cycles per second. If a driver is operating at 100Hz it is accelerating and decelerating a 100 times a second. The amount of the excursion is the amplitude. A sound wave is described by frequency, amplitude and wavelength. Where does fatness come in?

It is becoming more an more clear to me that you don't have a firm grasp of the fundamentals. This discussion is going no where. You don't seem to want to answer my questions directly all I get is more hand-wavy pseudoscience.

I think I am done here.
post #87 of 142
Thread Starter 
Me too. I feel like I need to write a book, in great detail, for you to be content with my words. I assume nothing about your intelligence. I simply express in "jargon and verbosity" as I would normally to describe my ideas to most people. I do it for generalized purposes. For most folks, the gist is enough. You want more, and I'm not sure why. I'm not willing to spend the time and go into great detail making graphs, exact examples with numbers and specific data. I could develop that, but it's more time and effort then I'd want to invest in such a manner. I really don't have the interest in this to put forth that much effort. This is not my job, and I am not building drivers. I've been a hobbyist in audio for 15 years, more heavily in the last 5. I know physics and am in engineering. I have no focus on audio, but I am familiar with the mechanics behind it from an electrical standpoint, driver design, and sound waves. I don't just make up random stuff to act cool or sound cool. I am a fellow hobbyist and helper in the community. This is where I come from.

I try to explain the same things in a variety of generic, descriptive ways, i.e. why I repeat myself. If that comes across as me just babbling crap. Sorry. Without going into actual detail and full out examples, that's all it can be. Either the descriptions are understood or they are not. If they are not, I fail to convey my ideas in a context that matches your understanding. There's not much I can do about it within the level of my willingness on this subject.

Just hitting on end points:
Quote:
Originally Posted by oarnura View Post
Inventing new physics are we? How can a driver that offers even a little resistance possibly move faster than the force that caused it to move? What new principle of physics did you discover?
I invent nothing, just repeat what is already known.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oarnura View Post
A 5 volt sine wave goes for +5 to -5 volts. Like I said you think the system works like a binary system but it doesn't. The -5 volt will pull the diagram back to complete the sine wave. So there is no way the diaphragm is doing to go faster or further than the signal sent to the voice coil.
I simply mention one peak value, and you automatically assume I'm talking binary. Waves are shapes. Voltage varies relative to the time domain. The slope, rate of change, of the wave is the "acceleration." The diaphragm should move at the same acceleration rate, but it is able to move faster or slower because the driver is not linear. This means the equivalent shape of the pressure wave emitted from the diaphragm can be shaped differently then the source, wider, narrower, with a higher peak amplidute, or shorter peak amplitude. If it's narrower (not saying frequency changes), then acceleration is higher, higher slope, higher acceleration. You can have a wave pattern that repeats every 1/100 of a second, and the wave shape can be narrow and pointy or fat and rounded over. This is attack and decay, the shape of the curve. The shape of the curve doesn't change the period of the oscillation of the wave pattern, but it does change the meaning of the wave pattern and in audio, the end sound.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oarnura View Post
You claimed decay has information to offer spatial cues. I asked you to prove it. It is obvious you can't because it is pure fiction.
The shape of the wave pattern is not a smooth sine wave. It's a complex jumble of peaks and valleys of various frequencies and amplitudes. This roughness of shape contains all the details of the sound. Attack is the rise of the wave pattern, decay the fall of the wave pattern. If you skew the shape of the wave pattern, smooth it out, shorten it, or whatever, you're messing up the information. In this sense, proper attack and decay is important. The driver needs to recreate the whole wave pattern in full detail and shape.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oarnura View Post
This is a silly example. A car suspension is not reproducing a signal. There is no external force causing the oscillation at a particular frequency that a car should respond to. In fact, A car's shock rebound and compression damping must be really good to prevent oscillations. Undamped osicalltions leads to a bouncy ride.
The road is the motor, the force provider. A speaker is simply a floating mass attached to a spring damper system with a motor attached to one end. It really isn't much different from a car in context although physically the systems are different. It's a little bit of a stretch, but the concepts are similar.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oarnura View Post
In a speaker the damping has to be very high.
Really? Most setups favor under damped systems. Like a sub when you put it in a box and gear towards a final Qtc of 0.707. 0.5 is critically dampened. 0.3 is over dampened. 0.7 is under dampened. Most setups are desgined to be critically dampened or under dampened to get the lowest F3. Very few setups are of an over dampened orientation, although some folks prefer it to get a tight, controlled type of sound.
post #88 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvw2 View Post
You want more, and I'm not sure why.
I would guess same reason I did, your answers don't make sense from an engineering/science perspective.

Quote:
It's a little bit of a stretch, but the concepts are similar.
In my opinion, there are a lot of similar concepts that are dissimilar in the real world. Sound and light, for example, are both waves but follow different laws of physics.

Quote:
I know physics and am in engineering. I have no focus on audio, but I am familiar with the mechanics behind it from an electrical standpoint, driver design, and sound waves. I don't just make up random stuff to act cool or sound cool. I am a fellow hobbyist and helper in the community. This is where I come from.
What kind of engineering? I am familiar with quantum mechanics, but can't hold a [rational] debate on where I would be able to find a quark, however my debate might make me sound like I know what I am talking about to people that know less than I do. I once knew an industrial engineer that was working with electrical engineers, but unfortunately he couldn't do the work because, while he knew the basics, he didn't know enough of the details to do the job.

OK, so this example:
Quote:
For example, a 50Hz sine wave takes 5 milliseconds to go from 0 volts to say a peak amplitude of 5 volts. We feed this 50Hz sine wave through a driver that has a strong motor relative to its dampening. The motor is strong and chucks the cone outward. The dampening is relatively low so it doesn't provide a ton of resistance to the motion. In 3.5 milliseconds it reaches the equivalent output peak that 5 volts translates to. The slope of rise is sharper then the slope of rise of the original source wave. The diaphragm moves too fast.
You state a 50 Hz sine wave. frequency = 1/time. So, 50 = 1/T, solving for T = 20ms. 5ms = 200 Hz (5ms half cycle is 100 Hz). Anyways, if a driver is supposed to produce a 100 Hz sine wave (5ms half cycle in the forward direction) and the driver somehow (not sure how this somehow works) produces it in 3.5ms, then it produced a 143 Hz wave. What happens with the remaining 1.5ms of source signal? If the driver continues to move, then is the driver an amplifier in itself (how is that possible)?

I can't imagine it, so please take the time to diagram it. Please free hand draw it, take a picture of your drawing with a digital camera or camera phone, and post the pic.
post #89 of 142
I found this thread is very interesting. Everybody are very knowledgeable and lots of thing to learn. There are several journals and associations which study audio which we can refer to, examples: Cookies Required , IEEEE, AES EBU, JAS (Japan Audio Society) ...


How about we start from basic...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudspeaker

If any relevent scientific study references, please add here

Thank You.
post #90 of 142
I don't know about all the square talk mumbo jumbo..

The Hepkitty simply puts on her Phonaks and listens to a Bill Haley beat, crazy horns and that 1950's slappin' upright bass sound...

And I get to Boppin' to the Crazy way gone beat!!!!!


Soundstage and lack of body that ese!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Mini Comparison - Vibe (1st gen), C700, PK2, RE0, NE-7M, PFE, ER4S, OK1, TF10, UM3X, SE530, IE8