Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 55

Thread: RAAL vs. Beryllium Dome

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    291

    Default Re: RAAL vs. Beryllium Dome

    Quote Originally Posted by curtis View Post
    Sibilance always starts with the recording. The tweeter may end up accentuating it, but you have to know the source to know if it is being portrayed accurately or not.
    How are people going to know what the recording are suppose to sound or intended to sound? Arent everything, coming from the recording? The speaker then give a charater.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Manhattan Beach, California
    Posts
    7,034

    Default Re: RAAL vs. Beryllium Dome

    Quote Originally Posted by RicardoJoa View Post
    How are people going to know what the recording are suppose to sound or intended to sound? Arent everything, coming from the recording? The speaker then give a charater.
    That's part of the point I was trying to make.

    Shouldn't assume the tweeter is causing the sibilance.

    Also, that tweeter may sound better with other recordings.
    Last edited by curtis; 08-14-2012 at 04:25 PM.
    -curtis

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    134

    Default Re: RAAL vs. Beryllium Dome

    Yes, with a good speaker, bright recordings should sound bright, dark ones dark, etc. They shouldn't add a character of their own, whether it be brightness or harshness, etc. Many recording, especially old ones sound terrible on great speakers because they are bad recordings and the resolution of the good speakers brings them out. Have you ever listened to Stevie Wonder on good speakers....man his songs sound terrible, but not because of the speakers, because of the recording studios back in the day.


    Quote Originally Posted by curtis View Post
    That's part of the point I was trying to make.

    Shouldn't assume the tweeter is causing the sibilance.

    Also, that tweeter may sound better with other recordings.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    291

    Default Re: RAAL vs. Beryllium Dome

    Quote Originally Posted by parimento1 View Post
    Yes, with a good speaker, bright recordings should sound bright, dark ones dark, etc. They shouldn't add a character of their own, whether it be brightness or harshness, etc. Many recording, especially old ones sound terrible on great speakers because they are bad recordings and the resolution of the good speakers brings them out. Have you ever listened to Stevie Wonder on good speakers....man his songs sound terrible, but not because of the speakers, because of the recording studios back in the day.
    There are way too much to talk then just speaker tone. Every speaker has some charecter to it. No matter how flat, two different speaker will never sound the same no matter how closely flat their response are. Trying to find a speaker to play what the recording suppose to sound, seems like a journey that will never end. For one, we dont know how it was recorded, and for two we dont know what other mixes are involved, but for the most, is that we werent at the recording venue, so we wouldnt exactly know how it was recorded. But even if you were, there might be a good chance that the next day you may already forgot how it sounded like.
    I rather enjoy great music played through great speakers, built from those who have the passion about this hobby.
    Thats just my perspective.
    Last edited by RicardoJoa; 08-15-2012 at 03:24 AM.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    501

    Default Re: RAAL vs. Beryllium Dome

    Quote Originally Posted by RicardoJoa View Post
    There are way too much to talk then just speaker tone. Every speaker has some charecter to it. No matter how flat, two different speaker will never sound the same no matter how closely flat their response are.
    I don't know if that's too accurate... It all comes down to distortion. When you have an uneven FR, that's distortion. When you move off axis and the FR changes, that's distortion. When the sound is not clearly rendered, again, distortion... So... What you're describing would be two speakers that while having an accurate FR, would have other distortions which would make it sound differently... (vertical/horizontal off-axis, THD, etc.) then yeah, ok.

    But if you had two speakers with relatively similar behavior; off axis FR, similar distortion, and they also measured relatively the same (not just on axis FR, but the whole slew of measurements), then they would also sound very much the same... So I agree that the same FR on axis wouldn't guarantee that they would sound exactly similar, it would indicate that in this fashion they will have similarities...

    identical FR of 2 speakers sounding different analogy: It's like looking at two people exactly from straight ahead. Even if they looked exactly the same, by turning the sideways, you could see differences; one could have a really crooked back, the other a huge ass, or hey one could be a two dimensional photo But yeah, looking exactly the same from the front wouldn't mean that they are exactly the same, but it doesn't mean that they couldn't be either... Maybe they are or maybe they're not... There's no reason they should be dissimilar (fact that they'd be identical from the front would probably hint that they'd be more similar than different...)

    Trying to find a speaker to play what the recording suppose to sound, seems like a journey that will never end. For one, we dont know how it was recorded, and for two we dont know what other mixes are involved, but for the most, is that we werent at the recording venue, so we wouldnt exactly know how it was recorded. But even if you were, there might be a good chance that the next day you may already forgot how it sounded like.
    I don't think it really matters how it was recorded. The job of the speaker isn't to reproduce a musical performance, it's to accurately convert an electrical signal to soundwaves. Or you mean for the listener, trying to determine which is more accurate...

    Hmm... Well, we have better tools to do so than the human ear. We can measure the amount of distortion of a speaker/driver and that can give us a very good glimpse about performance. It most often won't tell us how it would sound in a particular room for instance (arguable with off-axis measurements maybe?), but the 'recording' doesn't really fit in the equation of whether a speaker is better than another.. Ok well if you're trying to use your ears... But I think the audio industry is a clear example of why this doesn't work. Not only are the ears/memory imperfect, there's also subjective taste which makes the whole thing somewhat pointless... (in determining performance for instance or which of X and Y speakers are better). (as you stated!)


    But anyhow, there's different views on that.. Some people want speakers to color the sound a certain way or then it's 'boring', 'uninvolving' ,'lacking soul', etc., and they might find certain things like bass boost, lack of treble, etc., good things, which in their opinion, makes speakers better... That's why you just can't rely very much on people to measure speaker performance.. Some might describe perfect theoretical speakers as: 'harsh', 'lean', 'too analytical', 'bright', 'lacking air', 'lacking detail', 'lacking bass', 'too much bass', etc...
    Last edited by GirgleMirt; 08-15-2012 at 09:32 AM.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    291

    Default Re: RAAL vs. Beryllium Dome

    Quote Originally Posted by GirgleMirt View Post
    I don't know if that's too accurate... It all comes down to distortion. When you have an uneven FR, that's distortion. When you move off axis and the FR changes, that's distortion. When the sound is not clearly rendered, again, distortion... So... What you're describing would be two speakers that while having an accurate FR, would have other distortions which would make it sound differently... (vertical/horizontal off-axis, THD, etc.) then yeah, ok.
    Well yea, you are basically discribing any speaker. You called distortion, i called character. What do you mean by the sound is not clearly render? Does it mean a speaker sound so muddy that made you rewind and to hear again? I dont think that happend to me. Some speakers sounds very clean, i once heard a pair of thiel, they sounded so clean, i thought it was unatural. I dont think a real human voice can sound so clean.

    Quote Originally Posted by GirgleMirt View Post
    identical FR of 2 speakers sounding different analogy: It's like looking at two people exactly from straight ahead. Even if they looked exactly the same, by turning the sideways, you could see differences; one could have a really crooked back, the other a huge ass, or hey one could be a two dimensional photo But yeah, looking exactly the same from the front wouldn't mean that they are exactly the same, but it doesn't mean that they couldn't be either... Maybe they are or maybe they're not... There's no reason they should be dissimilar (fact that they'd be identical from the front would probably hint that they'd be more similar than different...)
    Seriously, whats is the probability to find two speakers with identical FR?
    I dont think thats going to be an easy find.


    Quote Originally Posted by GirgleMirt View Post
    I don't think it really matters how it was recorded. The job of the speaker isn't to reproduce a musical performance, it's to accurately convert an electrical signal to soundwaves. Or you mean for the listener, trying to determine which is more accurate...
    I dont think it matters too. But the problem is that people too often use the word accurate. How do you know what accuracy is to begin with? What are the standards for accuracy? Every speaker manufacture/designer called thier speaker accurate so how are you going to distinguish which one are accurate? Or are you going to say speaker A is more accurate then B, but they both are accurate. So is like British accent and american accent, which accent is more accurante?

    Quote Originally Posted by GirgleMirt View Post
    Hmm... Well, we have better tools to do so than the human ear. We can measure the amount of distortion of a speaker/driver and that can give us a very good glimpse about performance. It most often won't tell us how it would sound in a particular room for instance (arguable with off-axis measurements maybe?), but the 'recording' doesn't really fit in the equation of whether a speaker is better than another.. Ok well if you're trying to use your ears... But I think the audio industry is a clear example of why this doesn't work. Not only are the ears/memory imperfect, there's also subjective taste which makes the whole thing somewhat pointless... (in determining performance for instance or which of X and Y speakers are better). (as you stated!)
    Well i never said anything in determing performance base on hearing. Sure the room can play a huge effect on how it sound, but the overall sound of the speaker still can be heard, specialy when you listen close to it. I dont usually determine performance on speaker. Each speaker has in own attribute. If those attributes falls into my desire then i listen to them. Some fit better then other but I would rather just listen and enjoy.
    Even a speaker has a more "accurate" measurements doesnt mean i will like it better then the less accurte speaker. What fits one person may not fit the other.

    Quote Originally Posted by GirgleMirt View Post
    But anyhow, there's different views on that.. Some people want speakers to color the sound a certain way or then it's 'boring', 'uninvolving' ,'lacking soul', etc., and they might find certain things like bass boost, lack of treble, etc., good things, which in their opinion, makes speakers better... That's why you just can't rely very much on people to measure speaker performance.. Some might describe perfect theoretical speakers as: 'harsh', 'lean', 'too analytical', 'bright', 'lacking air', 'lacking detail', 'lacking bass', 'too much bass', etc...
    Well yea, sounds like you are just discribing people/pro review. Most of the pro review on speakers are like copy and paste, they all look about the same, they all sound good, usually saying that this speaker performs way more then its price tag...blahblah...
    One thing though, like you said, we have a lot of tool for measrements, i think this can help alot in deciding in buying speakers now a days.
    Last edited by RicardoJoa; 08-15-2012 at 11:21 AM.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Manhattan Beach, California
    Posts
    7,034

    Default Re: RAAL vs. Beryllium Dome

    Quote Originally Posted by RicardoJoa View Post
    One thing though, like you said, we have a lot of tool for measrements, i think this can help alot in deciding in buying speakers now a days.
    Not only for buying, but for designing and engineering a speaker as well.
    -curtis

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    501

    Default Re: RAAL vs. Beryllium Dome

    Quote Originally Posted by RicardoJoa View Post
    Well yea, you are basically discribing any speaker. You called distortion, i called character. What do you mean by the sound is not clearly render?
    Distortion I meant that it is more distorted.

    Does it mean a speaker sound so muddy that made you rewind and to hear again? I dont think that happend to me. Some speakers sounds very clean, i once heard a pair of thiel, they sounded so clean, i thought it was unatural. I dont think a real human voice can sound so clean.
    Well to give you an example, the 170SE tweeter vs the RAAL. Both are very flat on axis (FR), yet the RAAL will be more resolving, because the sound is produces is cleaner; more cleanly rendered; less distorted; more accurate.

    That's accuracy/less distortion. If you were to record the output of both tweeters and compare it to the original signal, if everything was perfect, you'd get exactly the same thing as you begun with; electrical signal. But since speakers are imperfect, they'll all distort the original source to an extent. But the RAAL should be closer to the original than the 170SE tweeter; less distortion.

    As for Thiel, not sure, maybe it wasn't more accurate or less distorted and what you perceived as more detail/so clean might have been artifacts... A speaker couldn't really sound too clean... It could only perfectly convert the electrical signal fed to it to sound waves... Then what you would be hearing is the recording, and that might in some way be strange sounding due to recording/effect or its own distortion... Well I guess in the strange world of audio this could be a bad thing... People do use terms like "too analytical"...


    Originally Posted by GirgleMirt View Post
    I don't think it really matters how it was recorded. The job of the speaker isn't to reproduce a musical performance, it's to accurately convert an electrical signal to soundwaves. Or you mean for the listener, trying to determine which is more accurate...
    I dont think it matters too. But the problem is that people too often use the word accurate. How do you know what accuracy is to begin with? What are the standards for accuracy? Every speaker manufacture/designer called thier speaker accurate so how are you going to distinguish which one are accurate? Or are you going to say speaker A is more accurate then B, but they both are accurate. So is like British accent and american accent, which accent is more accurante?
    For FR, it would be a straight line from 0.000000001hz to 50khz(or+). That would be 'perfect'. 'British sound' I think is bumped up treble and bass... So that's less accurate, 'american accent', I don't know what that is, but if it's an accent it's less accurate

    If you check the measurements page of the Ascend speakers, you'll also see a Waterfall plot which sends a short impulse and sees how 'quick' the speaker can make the sound and how quick it can stop making the sound. The RAAL because of it's lighter diaphragm/membrane whatever it is called, can do so extremely well. A regular heavier dome for instance won't be able to start/stop as fast, so again, more distortion, more artifacts (sound created by speaker not in original signal/source), so less accurate. (Aluminium might 'ring' and continue making sound.. Or in other words, again, distortion)

    Then there's the polar response or off axis-measurements, again, the ones that are flatter are better... What else... Impedance/Electrical phase, I don't think the impedance graph by itself speaks of more/less distortion, but I think it influences how speakers interacts with the amp, so depending on the amp it might influence how the speaker performs. Electrical phase, hmmm.. I don't really know..

    So anyway, with measurements, you can tell what is more 'accurate'. For the listener though, that's a different story, and if you know a special formula how to know which speaker is more accurate I'd like to know I guess then it's about listening skills (can and is a trained skill!) and quality if your own hearing...

    Well i never said anything in determing performance base on hearing. Sure the room can play a huge effect on how it sound, but the overall sound of the speaker still can be heard, specialy when you listen close to it. I dont usually determine performance on speaker. Each speaker has in own attribute. If those attributes falls into my desire then i listen to them. Some fit better then other but I would rather just listen and enjoy.
    Even a speaker has a more "accurate" measurements doesnt mean i will like it better then the less accurte speaker. What fits one person may not fit the other.

    Well yea, sounds like you are just discribing people/pro review. Most of the pro review on speakers are like copy and paste, they all look about the same, they all sound good, usually saying that this speaker performs way more then its price tag...blahblah...
    One thing though, like you said, we have a lot of tool for measrements, i think this can help alot in deciding in buying speakers now a days.
    Yeah you've perfectly described the subjectivity of it all in the 1st part... I guess that since no speaker is perfect, it's often a choice between imperfect speakers, and a decision for the individual based on which flawed products he finds more pleasing... (some are more bothered by a particular flaw than others) But yeah, it's sadly subjective... Until a 'perfect' set of measurements can come up with a definitive performance mark.. Guess it's all subjective in the end!

    But the very sad part in audio is that some attributes might clearly be better; for example, flat FR, yet, some will say that they sound bad because they don't 'dim' the high end for instance or don't bump up the bass.... So there's always a big confusion about what is really better... Also there's placebo effect, it's not like you're shown two paintings, one black and one white, and are asked which is white and which is black... It's far more complex, and hearing and memory being imperfect, and the human brain being easily fooled, you just can't rely very much on people or their senses... Add to that that speakers for instance are subjective and not even objective for most, you really end up with pretty much anything... With people liking/hating all sorts of speakers without any sort of clear barometer...

    I'll always remember reading someone commenting on some speakers he was selling, saying that he thought that they were pretty damn good, but ended up saying that in the end he preferred his BOSEs... *facepalm*
    Last edited by GirgleMirt; 08-15-2012 at 02:24 PM.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    291

    Default Re: RAAL vs. Beryllium Dome

    Quote Originally Posted by GirgleMirt View Post
    Distortion I meant that it is more distorted.


    Well to give you an example, the 170SE tweeter vs the RAAL. Both are very flat on axis (FR), yet the RAAL will be more resolving, because the sound is produces is cleaner; more cleanly rendered; less distorted; more accurate.

    That's accuracy/less distortion. If you were to record the output of both tweeters and compare it to the original signal, if everything was perfect, you'd get exactly the same thing as you begun with; electrical signal. But since speakers are imperfect, they'll all distort the original source to an extent. But the RAAL should be closer to the original than the 170SE tweeter; less distortion.

    As for Thiel, not sure, maybe it wasn't more accurate or less distorted and what you perceived as more detail/so clean might have been artifacts... A speaker couldn't really sound too clean... It could only perfectly convert the electrical signal fed to it to sound waves... Then what you would be hearing is the recording, and that might in some way be strange sounding due to recording/effect or its own distortion... Well I guess in the strange world of audio this could be a bad thing... People do use terms like "too analytical"...



    For FR, it would be a straight line from 0.000000001hz to 50khz(or+). That would be 'perfect'. 'British sound' I think is bumped up treble and bass... So that's less accurate, 'american accent', I don't know what that is, but if it's an accent it's less accurate

    If you check the measurements page of the Ascend speakers, you'll also see a Waterfall plot which sends a short impulse and sees how 'quick' the speaker can make the sound and how quick it can stop making the sound. The RAAL because of it's lighter diaphragm/membrane whatever it is called, can do so extremely well. A regular heavier dome for instance won't be able to start/stop as fast, so again, more distortion, more artifacts (sound created by speaker not in original signal/source), so less accurate. (Aluminium might 'ring' and continue making sound.. Or in other words, again, distortion)

    Then there's the polar response or off axis-measurements, again, the ones that are flatter are better... What else... Impedance/Electrical phase, I don't think the impedance graph by itself speaks of more/less distortion, but I think it influences how speakers interacts with the amp, so depending on the amp it might influence how the speaker performs. Electrical phase, hmmm.. I don't really know..

    So anyway, with measurements, you can tell what is more 'accurate'. For the listener though, that's a different story, and if you know a special formula how to know which speaker is more accurate I'd like to know I guess then it's about listening skills (can and is a trained skill!) and quality if your own hearing...


    Yeah you've perfectly described the subjectivity of it all in the 1st part... I guess that since no speaker is perfect, it's often a choice between imperfect speakers, and a decision for the individual based on which flawed products he finds more pleasing... (some are more bothered by a particular flaw than others) But yeah, it's sadly subjective... Until a 'perfect' set of measurements can come up with a definitive performance mark.. Guess it's all subjective in the end!

    But the very sad part in audio is that some attributes might clearly be better; for example, flat FR, yet, some will say that they sound bad because they don't 'dim' the high end for instance or don't bump up the bass.... So there's always a big confusion about what is really better... Also there's placebo effect, it's not like you're shown two paintings, one black and one white, and are asked which is white and which is black... It's far more complex, and hearing and memory being imperfect, and the human brain being easily fooled, you just can't rely very much on people or their senses... Add to that that speakers for instance are subjective and not even objective for most, you really end up with pretty much anything... With people liking/hating all sorts of speakers without any sort of clear barometer...

    I'll always remember reading someone commenting on some speakers he was selling, saying that he thought that they were pretty damn good, but ended up saying that in the end he preferred his BOSEs... *facepalm*
    Talking about BoSes.
    I have heard a few acosutimass, restaurant and in my friends home. I really didnt think they are all that bad, but they sure didnt cost that much, thats the problem. Would i buy it, hell no.... But i thought those who bashes almost have some hatre in it
    One thing about **** sure sounds like crap from Nissa 350Z

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    291

    Default Re: RAAL vs. Beryllium Dome

    Quote Originally Posted by GirgleMirt View Post
    Distortion I meant that it is more distorted.


    Well to give you an example, the 170SE tweeter vs the RAAL. Both are very flat on axis (FR), yet the RAAL will be more resolving, because the sound is produces is cleaner; more cleanly rendered; less distorted; more accurate.

    That's accuracy/less distortion. If you were to record the output of both tweeters and compare it to the original signal, if everything was perfect, you'd get exactly the same thing as you begun with; electrical signal. But since speakers are imperfect, they'll all distort the original source to an extent. But the RAAL should be closer to the original than the 170SE tweeter; less distortion.

    As for Thiel, not sure, maybe it wasn't more accurate or less distorted and what you perceived as more detail/so clean might have been artifacts... A speaker couldn't really sound too clean... It could only perfectly convert the electrical signal fed to it to sound waves... Then what you would be hearing is the recording, and that might in some way be strange sounding due to recording/effect or its own distortion... Well I guess in the strange world of audio this could be a bad thing... People do use terms like "too analytical"...



    For FR, it would be a straight line from 0.000000001hz to 50khz(or+). That would be 'perfect'. 'British sound' I think is bumped up treble and bass... So that's less accurate, 'american accent', I don't know what that is, but if it's an accent it's less accurate

    If you check the measurements page of the Ascend speakers, you'll also see a Waterfall plot which sends a short impulse and sees how 'quick' the speaker can make the sound and how quick it can stop making the sound. The RAAL because of it's lighter diaphragm/membrane whatever it is called, can do so extremely well. A regular heavier dome for instance won't be able to start/stop as fast, so again, more distortion, more artifacts (sound created by speaker not in original signal/source), so less accurate. (Aluminium might 'ring' and continue making sound.. Or in other words, again, distortion)

    Then there's the polar response or off axis-measurements, again, the ones that are flatter are better... What else... Impedance/Electrical phase, I don't think the impedance graph by itself speaks of more/less distortion, but I think it influences how speakers interacts with the amp, so depending on the amp it might influence how the speaker performs. Electrical phase, hmmm.. I don't really know..

    So anyway, with measurements, you can tell what is more 'accurate'. For the listener though, that's a different story, and if you know a special formula how to know which speaker is more accurate I'd like to know I guess then it's about listening skills (can and is a trained skill!) and quality if your own hearing...


    Yeah you've perfectly described the subjectivity of it all in the 1st part... I guess that since no speaker is perfect, it's often a choice between imperfect speakers, and a decision for the individual based on which flawed products he finds more pleasing... (some are more bothered by a particular flaw than others) But yeah, it's sadly subjective... Until a 'perfect' set of measurements can come up with a definitive performance mark.. Guess it's all subjective in the end!

    But the very sad part in audio is that some attributes might clearly be better; for example, flat FR, yet, some will say that they sound bad because they don't 'dim' the high end for instance or don't bump up the bass.... So there's always a big confusion about what is really better... Also there's placebo effect, it's not like you're shown two paintings, one black and one white, and are asked which is white and which is black... It's far more complex, and hearing and memory being imperfect, and the human brain being easily fooled, you just can't rely very much on people or their senses... Add to that that speakers for instance are subjective and not even objective for most, you really end up with pretty much anything... With people liking/hating all sorts of speakers without any sort of clear barometer...

    I'll always remember reading someone commenting on some speakers he was selling, saying that he thought that they were pretty damn good, but ended up saying that in the end he preferred his BOSEs... *facepalm*
    Even if you have two speaker with flat response, therere still people who gonna prefer one over the other. We are humans not machines. Even intrustments arent created equally. If someone ask you, how is undistorted music sound like? What would you asnwer? Barometer, would be our ears.
    Do you have a barometer to pick your perfect colone?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •