Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Testing audiophile claims and myths
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Testing audiophile claims and myths - Page 157

post #2341 of 3721
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

If you do hear a difference, try to define what it is... dynamics, frequency response, distortion, etc. If it is frequency response, see if you can correct for it using the Onkyo's tone controls. The mono block amps may have a "house sound" coloration. It isn't uncommon in amps without tone controls.

 

What I did hear without the blind testing and level matching was that the Quads were alot more dynamic, not in the volume sense but in the way drums for example were upfront and very clear sounding. On big band recordings such as some Mingus/Ellington to name a couple, instrument seperation was better and the presentation was overall much more airy. The level of detail for the most part was a few steps above the Onkyo, so I'm guessing frequency response was also a factor. The Onkyo sound was more muddled with a lot less "space" if that makes sense.

 

I really dislike reviewing gear because honestly it sounds kinda silly using words like 'airy' and 'muddled' to describe sound, but for lack of a better vocabulary, I'll have to stick with what comes to mind first.

post #2342 of 3721

Might be because the monoblocks use a seperate amp per a channel which will have better crosstalk than a stereo amp, most reference and p.a amps use a dual mono design aswell and can be had at half the cost.

post #2343 of 3721
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRG1990 View Post
 

Might be because the monoblocks use a seperate amp per a channel which will have better crosstalk than a stereo amp, most reference and p.a amps use a dual mono design aswell and can be had at half the cost.

Pretty sure that's the case with my InterM amp (it has seperate volume knobs for each channel), and the Quads still sounded much better. Will do the test and see though.

post #2344 of 3721
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmoe View Post
 

What I did hear without the blind testing and level matching was that the Quads were alot more dynamic, not in the volume sense but in the way drums for example were upfront and very clear sounding. On big band recordings such as some Mingus/Ellington to name a couple, instrument seperation was better and the presentation was overall much more airy. The level of detail for the most part was a few steps above the Onkyo, so I'm guessing frequency response was also a factor. The Onkyo sound was more muddled with a lot less "space" if that makes sense.

 

More dynamic and overall "bigger" sound with punchier drums is what slightly higher volume subjectively sounds like. :normal_smile : It also affects the perceived frequency response, because at higher volume, bass and (to a lesser extent) treble become relatively more audible.

post #2345 of 3721

It would be worth using that amp in your blindtest as its closer in design to your mono blocks , I suspect the onyko receiver and inter-m amps are the neutral amps and the quads have been tuned through the the use of disortion or something to have a in house sound, I highly doubt for the price and target market the onyko and inter-m are aimed at they have been tuned to have a in house sound as it would be much more cost effective to make them using test equipment to be transparent.

post #2346 of 3721
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRG1990 View Post
 

Might be because the monoblocks use a seperate amp per a channel which will have better crosstalk than a stereo amp, most reference and p.a amps use a dual mono design aswell and can be had at half the cost.

 

A stereo amp should be really poorly designed to have clearly audible crosstalk. I do not think anything better than -40 dB at 10 kHz (a figure that is not too hard to achieve, and means that a sound panned entirely to one side is "moved" by 1%) would make much difference, especially with speakers having limited stereo separation in the first place.

post #2347 of 3721
Quote:
Originally Posted by stv014 View Post
 

 

More dynamic and overall "bigger" sound with punchier drums is what slightly higher volume subjectively sounds like. :normal_smile : It also affects the perceived frequency response, because at higher volume, bass and (to a lesser extent) treble become relatively more audible.

 

Once again, this was true also with the preamp + monoblocks at a significantly lower volume than the Onkyo.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRG1990 View Post
 

It would be worth using that amp in your blindtest as its closer in design to your mono blocks , I suspect the onyko receiver and inter-m amps are the neutral amps and the quads have been tuned through the the use of disortion or something to have a in house sound, I highly doubt for the price and target market the onyko and inter-m are aimed at they have been tuned to have a in house sound as it would be much more cost effective to make them using test equipment to be transparent.

 

Well I might as well add it to the mix then, but it'll have to be 2 at a time since my preamp only has 2 outputs.

post #2348 of 3721

very interesting and cool. i liked # 33 with the hdmi cables 

post #2349 of 3721

Subscribed.

post #2350 of 3721

Did not forget this topic, still have a pair of speaker cables to buy so I should get down to business next weekend.

post #2351 of 3721

I have a question about harmonics. The fundamental is the lowest number in signal analysis and the harmonics are integral multiples of that number.

 

But I've heard from some people that you get subharmonics too. Frequencies that are integral fractions of the fundamental. There is a discussion on another forum where someone is arguing that instruments can and do produce subharmonics below the fundamental and that it contributes to ambiance and sound staging.

 

Any acoustic boffins here? :D I thought the fundamental, by definition, was the lowest number. Or are subharmonics really the fundamental, and the tuned frequency is ..?


Edited by Mezzo - 2/26/14 at 12:56am
post #2352 of 3721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mezzo View Post
 

I have a question about harmonics. The fundamental is the lowest number in signal analysis and the harmonics are integral multiples of that number.

 

But I've heard from some people that you get subharmonics too. Frequencies that are integral fractions of the fundamental. There is a discussion on another forum where someone is arguing that instruments can and do produce subharmonics below the fundamental and that it contributes to ambiance and sound staging.

 

Any acoustic boffins here? :D I thought the fundamental, by definition, was the lowest number. Or are subharmonics really the fundamental, and the tuned frequency is ..?

It is debatable if that are subharmonics or intermodulation (difference ) products of the sound(s) heard live. Be it as it may with the origins of these low frequency - it really does contribute to ambient retrieval / soundstage. 

 

That is why I insist on using  ( recording)  equipment with "unnecessirily extended" bandwidth - in both directions. My entire recording chain has to pass 3 Hz ( in a word : THREE Hertz ) square wave MUCH better, with lower tilt, than the reference square wave observed trough AC coupled oscilloscope. Limit the extension in bass ( for anything approaching perfect square wave at a given frequency, the bandwidth of the equipment has to be good (- 3 dB ) to at least 1/10th of the test frequency.   That means  I use equipment that overall has 0.3 Hz ( one third of a Hz ) at -3 dB ) - and the cathedral will be progressively turning into village church, depending how severe limiting of bass in equipment is effective.  It is in no way limited to bassy sound source(s) - an unaccompanied  soprano in a (large) church is all that it takes ...

 

This is audible even on very small speakers lacking the proper bass response; real benefits will show up on large speakers in a LARGE room - or, you've guessed it - headphones - that do support well extended bass.

post #2353 of 3721
Quote:
Originally Posted by analogsurviver View Post
 

It is debatable if that are subharmonics or intermodulation (difference ) products of the sound(s) heard live. Be it as it may with the origins of these low frequency - it really does contribute to ambient retrieval / soundstage. 

 

That is why I insist on using  ( recording)  equipment with "unnecessirily extended" bandwidth - in both directions. My entire recording chain has to pass 3 Hz ( in a word : THREE Hertz ) square wave MUCH better, with lower tilt, than the reference square wave observed trough AC coupled oscilloscope. Limit the extension in bass ( for anything approaching perfect square wave at a given frequency, the bandwidth of the equipment has to be good (- 3 dB ) to at least 1/10th of the test frequency.   That means  I use equipment that overall has 0.3 Hz ( one third of a Hz ) at -3 dB ) - and the cathedral will be progressively turning into village church, depending how severe limiting of bass in equipment is effective.  It is in no way limited to bassy sound source(s) - an unaccompanied  soprano in a (large) church is all that it takes ...

 

Based on how I understand the argument, what some people are saying is that like a helmholz resonator, if you whistle/blow over the bottle until you find the correct resonant pitch then the note emancipating from the bottle is lower than the whistle. So based on the fact that there is a resonant chamber excited by external influence; a note of certain pitch, as I understand it, people are saying that there are subharmonics with instruments with their own resonant cavities.

 

I'm not clued up enough to know the answer. All I've been known is that you get a fundamental frequency and that is the lowest signal that you can get, the harmonics are multiples of that. Subharmonics ...? Not sure how that factors in given the fundamental frequency. Always known that harmonics are multiples of the fundamental.


Edited by Mezzo - 2/26/14 at 1:31am
post #2354 of 3721
Quote:
Originally Posted by analogsurviver View Post

if that are subharmonics or intermodulation (difference ) products of the sound(s) heard live.

Yes, IM Distortion can create artifacts lower in pitch than either of two or more fundamental frequencies. But other than that there's no such thing as subharmonics. Whatever the lowest frequency is for a single note, that is the fundamental.

--Ethan
post #2355 of 3721
Quote:
Originally Posted by EthanWiner View Post


Yes, IM Distortion can create artifacts lower in pitch than either of two or more fundamental frequencies. But other than that there's no such thing as subharmonics. Whatever the lowest frequency is for a single note, that is the fundamental.

--Ethan

Sounds logical.

 

There is another source of low frequencies - one which necessitates response practically to DC.

 

It is the brass/wind  instruments - basically, a trumpet ( as the most typical of the family ) is basically a valve in which you blow and "regulate" the "output " (sound) by releasing valves with your fingers. It can generate mostly overpressure - only the most versed jazz players know how to "suck" instead of "blow" the trumpet. 

 

Here we stumble upon yet another myth - the absolute phase. The above mentioned brass instruments will produce mostly only overpressure - giving a correspondingly output at the output of a correctly wired microphone mostly in the positive direction. It can be viewed as a sine wave superimposed on a very near to DC component. It is what gives the distinction of a trumpet from close range - and far away, say military barracks. Air tends to return to its state of equilibrioum, the further the sound has to travel, the more will be this low-next-to-DC component filtered out. This does give the sense of depth - which is sadly missing in audio equipment incapable of DC or near DC low frequency extension.

 

A trumpet (or any other brass or to a lesser degree, wind instrument ) will sound odd if amplified by a microphone/microphone preamp with the absolute phase inverted. NO equalization can compensate for this - absolute polarity has to be observed from input to output, if fidelity of the real sound is to be preserved.

 

I expect quite a hoolaballo after the above statement, with numerous "proofs" by tons of distinguished members of the audio community, who claim absolute phase to be inaudible. Yes, I agree ; in a multimiked recording, played over multi unit /way loudspeakers with phase incoherent crossoversa, it does not matter in the slightest; the inherent deficiences in recording itself render such precision impossible, and it is repeated on the multi way speakers, giving a totally predictable 50:50 outcome in the statistics of blind testing - falsely proving that absolute phase does not matter.

 

Try a binaural recording on good, preferably electrostatic headphones, preferably driven by high voltage DC amp  ( like Stax models ) - THAT is a different ballgame altogether. The trumpet will really suck if reproduced "sucking" instead of "blowing" - and equipment lacking LF extension will be ruthlessly exposed as such. 

 

There is more to the frequency response than just the fundamental frequencies as generally accepted. Organ, which is generally accepted to produce the lowest fundamentals ( usually 16 Hz, but there are exceptional instruments going yet one octave lower, down to 8.xy Hz ) , can be exceeded in LF extension by incomparably smaller trumpet, saxophone, etc - depending how close to these brass instruments is the listener.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Testing audiophile claims and myths