Well, I can tune my instruments by ear, but not nearly as accurately or easily as using a precision tuning device, but that wasn't my point.
Even if I think I perceive innaccuracies in a loudspeaker by ear, how do I go about fixing it (by ear)? By randomly changing parts?
If I measure a XdB peak at XHz, I can calculate exactly what's needed to smooth it. How can one possibly do that by ear, or, given the readily available science, justify even trying to do so?
In an age that we can view the far reaches of the universe on our home PCs via the Hubbel telescope and an intricate network of intercommunication devices, (all made possible by well established principles of electronics), I fail to see any benefit or reason to try to balance one of the simplest forms of an LCR network by ear and trial and error...
Further, by encouraging such practices, how can we ever expect to advance the hobby, or teach the requisite principles? Is the audio hobby forever doomed to the realm of magic and unknown variables? :doh:
"[I]We're going all the way, till the wheels fall off and burn[/I]!"
Bob Dylan, from [I]Brownsville Girl[/I]
[I]"Time wounds all heels"[/I]
John Lennon, referring to the Nixon/Hoover deportation fiasco.
Guitar makers and violin makers use their ears and tapping of the panels to tune the instrument bodies. I can imagine an incremental process could be applied to crossover performance but it would entail a lot of trial and a lot of error to learn the craft. Measurement seems to be the way to go. Maybe a combination of the two for those interested in a touchy-feely approach. Me? I am happy to let someone else do the hard yards.
Cheers, Marshall.
Pretty much. I mean those of us that couldn't watch a response in real time typically had decade boxes to start with a textbook solution and work from there, but today folks either use a PC program such as LspCad or use a digital XO/EQ/RTA processor, then reproduce it with passive components if that's what they want. Still, something's always lost in the translation and why designers of high SQ speakers will experiment with the technically correct XO(s) which can sound 'sterile'/'dry'/'recessed' to see if a tweak here n' there by ear might make it sound more 'musical' or bring the vocals forward a bit/whatever, i.e. personalize it.Originally Posted by bfish
GM
Loud is Beautiful if it's Clean! As always though, the usual disclaimers apply to this post's contents.
You're stretching a bit there Bfish. I don't think anyone here is advocating throwing out measurements. Or doing it all by trial and error. But not listening to your work would also be silly. A mic and preamp are not an ear and brain. They don't work quite the same way.So it's good to use both.
An example:
I had gotten pretty far along with my A5 active crossover. FR was pretty flat, phase response was good. By most accounts a good effort. But something about it did not sound right. It sounded slightly cold and lifeless. And there was a sort of cardboard box sound to it. I did not like it.
So I asked a friend about it. He said "Sure, it's the woofer. You're getting out to soon, or not soon enough. You're missing some of the upper harmonics of the woofer and so it sounds like paper - or cardboard. Try getting a little more woofer in there. You won't have to change much."
I did, and it worked. Just changing from 3rd order to 2nd order on the woofer immediately sounded more natural and a bit warmer. Male voices definitely improved. Unfortunately, it killed the sense of space. So I tried a lot of different things, crossover points, slopes, phase.
Finally ended up just moving the crossover point up by 75Hz. That's all it took. Sounds much better now. And the imaging as been retained. Still measures the same (on axis) but does not sound the same. I'm sure that the harmonics do not measure the same. But without listening and tweaking some by ear, I would not have arrived at the better fix.
After that I even managed to improve phase response. That I could NOT have done by ear, measurements guided the way. But the result does sound better.
[QUOTE=Panomaniac;1813917]
Finally ended up just moving the crossover point up by 75Hz. That's all it took. Sounds much better now. But without listening and tweaking some by ear, I would not have arrived at the better fix.
I had the same experience recently. I tried changing the cutoff capacitance 1 uf at a time and found a value I liked better. Also, I couldn't get a speaker system to sound right until I reversed the polarity on the mid range driver. The electronics gets us there but the ear has the final say.
[QUOTE=bfish;1813834 Not trying to be a smartass, .[/QUOTE]
Really ??? If you read the whole post and didn't take it out of context.What I said is once you have a XO in the ballpark(Say a stock XO) one could make minor adjustments to that crossover one way or the other to ones Liking for sound preferrance(Ear) subtle changes.One thing I know is I have a pretty good ear and I trust my ear more than some computer.What's next your computer going to tell you that it is right on so it has to sound perfect.It's all about what sounds good to you that's it.
1.What did people(DIY's) do before all these fancy programs or the PC for that matter.
2.I guess I can't tune my guitar by ear I need a computer to do it ???
3.And also I said similar to what L-pads try to do tweak frequencies to ones Liking or to ones space,listening room.
Everyones ears hear things differently (Sound Preferrance) and for me My Ears Will have the final say Thank You Very Much !!!!!!!!!
As most others here agree that they like to have their ears have the final judgment and not a computer.But use a computer to get to the right area and use their ears to do the FINAL ADJUSTMENTS that is what I was saying to Marv.
This is my point just use your own judgment on what sounds best to YOU, not this that or the other person.Experimenting never hurt anyone.Some great discoveries have been found this way.You're stretching a bit there Bfish. I don't think anyone here is advocating throwing out measurements. Or doing it all by trial and error. But not listening to your work would also be silly. A mic and preamp are not an ear and brain. They don't work quite the same way.
An example:
I had gotten pretty far along with my A5 active crossover. FR was pretty flat, phase response was good. By most accounts a good effort. But something about it did not sound right. It sounded slightly cold and lifeless. And there was a sort of cardboard box sound to it. I did not like it.
So I asked a friend about it. He said "Sure, it's the woofer. You're getting out to soon, or not soon enough. You're missing some of the upper harmonics of the woofer and so it sounds like paper - or cardboard. Try getting a little more woofer in there. You won't have to change much."
I did, and it worked. Just changing from 3rd order to 2nd order on the woofer immediately sounded more natural and a bit warmer. Male voices definitely improved. Unfortunately, it killed the sense of space. So I tried a lot of different things, crossover points, slopes, phase.
Finally ended up just moving the crossover point up by 75Hz. That's all it took. Sounds much better now. And the imaging as been retained. Still measures the same (on axis) but does not sound the same. I'm sure that the harmonics do not measure the same. But without listening and tweaking some by ear, I would not have arrived at the better fix.
After that I even managed to improve phase response. That I could NOT have done by ear, measurements guided the way. But the result does sound better.
If so, my usefulness here has run its' course.
"[I]We're going all the way, till the wheels fall off and burn[/I]!"
Bob Dylan, from [I]Brownsville Girl[/I]
[I]"Time wounds all heels"[/I]
John Lennon, referring to the Nixon/Hoover deportation fiasco.
Why?
I suspect that most of us in this hobby have developed a keener acoustical sense than the Proletariat-at-large.
Using our hearing we can get close to where we want to be, but we really need measurements to create an optimal setup.
Pano and bfish are really on the same page. Pano?s initial work got him very close to where he needed to be. His hearing suggested he wasn?t quite there. He then made additional measurements and tweaks until he had an optimal system.
For those of you that have not yet played around with acoustical measuring, here?s a simple and free PC program that can be used to ?see? what you?re ?hearing? when you rotate those L-pads on your crossovers and those bass-mid-treble knobs on your amps. It can also help you decide where to place your speakers.
jDFT - Download
You?ll need a mic (a $50 to $70 measurement mic is preferred, but an all-purpose cheap mic might work well enough to get some RTA graphs on the screen). You?ll also need some ?pink noise?, which can be download for free on the internet.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks