Latest on my ALK upgrade

[DTLongo]

As some of you may recall from posts, about six weeks ago Al K. lent me a pair of his new 2" Trachorns for a week and then reported on my listening impressions of them. While he was here I took advantage of all his measuring gear Al brought over (extensive, good thing he lives nearby) to re-check his 1" Trachorns and ES crossovers that he installed in my '03 Klipschorns for me last year. The midrange and tweeter drivers are stock Klipsch. Al backed off the midrange squawkers as I requested, and with his gear set the tweeters dead flat relative to that.

Trouble was, to my ear the result sounded somewhat dull. At the age of going-on-68 and based on listening tests, ain't nothing much left up in the old ears beyond ca,.12 Khz if that much. So, I reset the tweeters with Al's jumpers to wide open. The difference (for me) was, really, amazing. The speakers opened up, it was literally like lifting a rather heavy veil.

Footnote: I recently acquired a gadget for digital-audio recording of the local symphony orchestra I am associated with (www.midatlanticsymphony.org). It is a Zoom H4N digitial audio recorder, a small device that could fit in an overcoat pocket. You really have to get used to it since its screens are not terribly intuitive and the accompanying manual transliterated from Japanese or Chinese is a challenge. Plus, it tends to record at low (but high quality) levels, so you have to be level-aggressive with whatever audio import program you're using (for me, Audacity). But once you work the kinks out, it's a truly impressive gadget. True CD-audio and better quality for only around $300.00. (Klipschsite police note: I have no connection at all with Zoom, some musicians in the M.S.O. recommended it to me.)

[Al Klappenberger]

I think this is the recorder Tom is talking about.

Here's more about it: http://www.zoom.co.jp/english/products/h4n/

AL K.

[Al Klappenberger]

These little portable digital recorders seem to be the latest thing. When I started looking for a digital recorder a while ago I couldn't find any of the older 4mm tape recorders that I was looking for. The only way you can get these is on eBay! I didn't need a portable recorder so I got a used Tascam DA-20 for $200. It's DEFINITELY NOT portable!

I only wanted the digital recorder because it will record up to 2 straight hours on a single tape and then dump the recording directly to a CD recorder digitally, with no loss. I use it for recording off FM. The 90 minute analog cassette recorder I was using for that was real pain flipping the tape very 45 minutes! Even the new rack-mounted digital recorders use the flash-memory cards instead of tape. These cost over $1000 and I didn't want to spend that kind of money to record off FM broadcasts!

AL K.

[Al Klappenberger]

I'm curious about a point Tom makes here. It would seem to me that a persons' hearing would be a "constant" over everything he hears and would be the same no matter if he is listening to live music or reproduced music. Why is it that Tom would want to hear more highs over his stereo than he hears when listening to live music? I'm going to venture a theory: Maybe when listen to live music they subconsciously accept what they hear is an absolute and accept it as such, but when listening to a stereo they are really trying to entertain themselves by recapturing the days when they could actually hear 20 KHz. If this is the case, it sheds even more questions about the merits of listening tests over instrument tests. It suggest that even a person whose ears have been "calibrated" by listening to the real thing can still prefer something other than "true" reproduction. If this is true, what is a speaker manufacturer to do? Show they make a speaker have perfectly flat frequency response or make it suit what most people "want" to hear. Which philosophy will sell the most speakers?

AL K.

[Chris A]

Maybe when listen to live music they subconsciously accept what they hear is an absolute and accept it as such, but when listening to a stereo they are really trying to entertain themselves by recapturing the days when they could actually hear 20 KHz.

Now. I think that you are stumbling onto a subject of some interest here (no kidding). Some other questions arise if even a portion of your hunch is correct: do people want sound reproduction systems at home (i.e., "stereos") that sound like the ones they had when they were young? This includes distortion sources like direct radiating woofers (low frequency), tube electronics, vinyl and turntables, etc. But, of course, that is a "can of worms" from which I'll let you off the hook. But it IS an interesting thought.

Last night, I was listening to Goldberg Variations on harpsichord (SACD--for those purists that prefer pedigree). My wife mentioned that it was a little loud, and I mentioned that I'd turn it down, but that it was the loudness of a real harpsichord. She had apparently never heard a harpsichord in real life. My imprinted memories said that I was listening to the "real thing", hers said that it was "too loud". Could be some truth on both sides of this argument. But the point is: I spent some time listening to the "real thing" when I was very young (involuntarily I might add). I now like stereo systems that can reproduce that sound from my memories, especially organ music.

I wonder if PWK also had childhood memories of pipe organs? He apparently drew some of his design criteria for the Khorn from accurate reproduction of pipe organ (albeit, 32' bourdon stops).

Sorry to wander.

If this is true, what is a speaker manufacturer to do? Show they make a speaker have perfectly flat frequency response or make it suit what most people "want" to hear. Which philosophy will sell the most speakers?

I know what I'd do if making money is the sole measure of merit. Even klipsch doesn't produce "flat" speakers. I noticed that there is a "house curve" that even Roy uses when balancing speakers, but doesn't talk about.

Chris

[DTLongo]

Yes, the Zoom HN4 recorder pictured by Al K. is the one I have.

(from Al K.) " I'm curious about a point Tom makes here. It would seem to me that a person's hearing would be a "constant" over everything he hears and would be the same no matter if he is listening to live music or reproduced music. Why is it that Tom would want to hear more highs over his stereo than he hears when listening to live music?"

Al, I think I know you well enough to observe that you're a dedicated engineer and, as such, what your instruments' technical measurements tell you is absolute truth for you. If they say a curve is flat then by gum and by gawd it's FLAT. But actual human hearing is a subjective as well as objective exercise. Take the famous Fletcher-Mundsen (sp)? Loudness hearing curves. Signals at both 20 db and 85 db levels may be each measurably dead-flat, but the human ear interprets the lower-level signal as tinny and the higher-level one as full. Hence, Loudness compensation. Also, individual people's hearing varies. I know from test signals that my old ears don't hear much if anything above 11 or 12 khz. Yet I can still detect the very subtle differneces between, say, your 1" Trachorns that are in my Khorns and the 2" Trachorns you lent me for a week and sought my listening impressions about.

Both the "engineering" and "ear" approaches are legitimate, neither is more "right" than the other. It's what gives the listener pleasure that counts. As good as my Khorns with your Trachorns and ES networks are, I can sure hear the difference between them and and a live Mid-Atlantic Symphony performance. Running the tweeters wide open brings the Khorns closer to approximating the live performance, to my ears.

(from Al K.) "It suggests that even a person whose ears have been "calibrated" by listening to the real thing can still prefer something other than "true" reproduction. If this is true, what is a speaker manufacturer to do? Show they make a speaker have perfectly flat frequency response or make it suit what most people "want" to hear. Which philosophy will sell the most speakers?"

It follows from my comments above that a wise manufacturer's policy would be to incorporate crossover level controls in their speakers so that users can set the speakers to their preference. Original Large Advents and other speakers, back then, had that feature. But to do that well costs money, which is another consideration. Al's sophisticated crossovers, which do allow for level-sets without degrading the signal, are not exactly cheap.

[Al Klappenberger]

Guys,

All good insight. Keep it coming! One point I might make is that all Tom did was make the tweeter louder. That is only one of a LONG list of factors that determine what something "sounds like". Some we can easily measure, like frequency response and harmonic distortion. Others, like "coloration" you just can't measure. My question is why is it that something that you CAN measure, tweeter level, in this case, would sound better other than flat considering the "window" through which you listen to live music (no speaker at all) is perfectly "flat"? The higher level of the tweeter is making the highs louder than real. Its got to be compensating for something else you can't or haven't measured. I wouldn't think it would be Fletcher Munson effects if you set the loudness to the same as the real thing. Tom, do you listen at the same levels as real live music? If so, something else is going on. If you run it softer, the bass would need to be kicked up too. If you recall, I actually did do that by reducing the squawker level a bit when I was there! Fletcher Munson might actuall be the answer.

AL K.

[Marvel]

Fletcher Munson might actuall be the answer.

I think you are mostly correct. But you also need to look at it in this way...

I wouldn't think it would be Fletcher Munson effects if you set the loudness to the same as the real thing.

It wouldn't matter if the recording engineer was monitoring at lower levels. If the engineer's playback/monitoring was only 80db, but you listen to the recording at 95-100db or more, the bass and the treble are going to be way hotter than the way the engineer heard it. If the eng. monitors at live levels and you listen at the same level, you should both be hearing the same thing. If you listen lower, the bass and treble will seem a little weak. (assuming you both had flat systems)

Bruce

[Al Klappenberger]

Marvel,

"If the engineer's playback/monitoring was only 80db, but you listen to
the recording at 95-100db or more, the bass and the treble are going to
be way hotter than the way the engineer heard it."

I don't think that matters. The recording equipment does not exhibit the Fletcher Munson effect. That's only in the human ear / brain at playback. The recording equipment has a flat response no matter the record level. The record level is set as high as it can be set without clipping to ensure the best signal / noise ratio. Fletcher Munson only comes into play when the recording is plaid back. I don't think any compensation for loudness is set into recordings. There is other compensation done though, like RIAA equalization for vinyl recordings, for example. After all, how can a recording engineer know how loud you are going to play his recording? It's up to the listener to adjust his tone controls or the "Loudness" knob some pre-amps have to his taste. Of course, I'm not a recording engineer, I could be wrong. Lee Clinton (Arcytype) might know. He does some of that work. Maybe he's reading this post. How about it?

Al K.

[Marvel]

The recording equipment does not exhibit the Fletcher Munson effect. That's only in the human ear / brain at playback. The recording equipment has a flat response no matter the record level.

Exactly!

Think about what you wrote... If an engineer pays back his multitrack tape for mixdown at 85db, his ears hear the mix a certain way. He might eq particular tracks so that he can hear them better. What if the cymbals aren't very bright, for example. It isn't just the level he might bring up, but he might boost the highs on that particular track. Sounds great in the control room.

You pop a cd in at home and listen at 95-100db, and those cymbals might sound a bit too bright for you. Crank it up to 105-110 for a concert level or higher, and some of his boosted/tweaked highs will bore a hole in your head.

Bruce

[ngk]

Al,

Could the problem relate to the stock tweeter which has a fairly poor upper frequency response and output above about 17kHz? By running the tweeter 'open' it may be an attempt to compensate for this response. I know that one cannot necessarily hear these high frequencies in isolation, particularly as one gets older. However, the harmonics and interaction with clearly audible frequencies will be readily apparent. I wonder if this problem would apply if the Selenium tweeter is used with its smoother, extended frequency response?

Nick

[Al Klappenberger]

Marvel,

All I can say is I hope you are wrong! I definitely do NOT want some guy at the recording session telling me how loud I am supposed to listen to his recording or how good or bad my hearing is! I want the frequency response flat so I can deviate to my taste from a known situation. I think this is a question that will ultimately have to be answered by someone who has actually done recording on a professional basis,

ngk,

Tom says he can't hear anything above 12 KHz, so what good is a tweeter that extends to 20KHz if he can't hear it no matter how loud it is. It's the area between the crossover at 5800 Hz and his upper hearing limit that he can hear that got boosted with the new setting. That was the change he was loking for.

Al K.

[Chris A]

Its got to be compensating for something else you can't or haven't measured. I wouldn't think it would be Fletcher Munson effects if you set the loudness to the same as the real thing.

I haven't forgotten the "loudness" button found on most receivers in the 70s up to the present. This is F-M compensation. I find it hard to understand why such devices would disappear from "audiophile electronics". Maybe the assumption by these manufacturers is either:

1) Audiophiles always listen to their music at realistic levels, []

2) Audiophiles will find some other way to add in EQ for F-M effects (using an external EQ device or some amplifier that artificially induces lf boost and adds even hf harmonics--[guess what I'm talking about here [8-)]), or

3) The speakers that audiophiles listen to typically have their low and high FR already boosted. In the 70s, I remember more than a few loudspeakers that were like that (I'm thinking JBL L100s, perhaps others).[+o(]

4) Audiophile electronics manufacturers don't think about the subject at all. [:|]

I think many audiophiles pick their sources of distortion strangely: (i.e., "distortion" here is anything that doesn't reproduce exactly what was recorded). They spend $1000s on tube electronics, but poopoo EQ devices. Some audiophiles profess to want "flat" speakers (something that is seemingly more prevalent in the UK) which distort when music dynamic performance or intermodulation distortion is examined, others tolerate "uneven FR" in order to preserve some amount of fidelity for dynamics with low IMD (more like the horn-speaker crowd). Some say that "I've got to have speakers that reproduce music above 20 KHz (to their pets' severe discomfort, I might add), others that say that they cannot hear ANYTHING above ~12 KHz.

I think that people buy what they want, then try to justify their purchases using, well what is typically called "humbug" in most of the English-speaking world, but is also known as [bs] (with all due regard to Dr. Frankfurt's excellent little book on the subject).

The bottom line: most audiophile equipment manufacturers build what sells, and cover their tracks well when someone asks what they are really doing. Just look at Bose corporation...[+o(]

[]

Chris

[Al Klappenberger]

Chris,

About the lack of the "loudness" button on some equipment: I remember many years ago, when my father bought his Marantz 7C preamp. He asked why there was no "Loudness" control on it considering it was the best you could buy at the time. The answer was that the simple bass and treble controls could do the same job and allow much more flexibility too. My McIntosh C34V preamp has a loudness control and a 5 segment equalizer. I never use either of them. To me, boosting the bass or treble doesn't compensate for anything. To get it to sound real, the only thing that works for me is to crank up the volume until it's what I expect a real performance would be. Only then does a recording come to life.

Al K.

[kzr750r1]

I always though the loudness button was an EQ boost to use when not listening at high SPL.

Of course this also didn't limit folks from going further and placing EQ to isolate and broadcast only the low range. The cars driving by the house with their body panels rattling comes to mind.

At the moment my best system is in my car (stock system). I like the fact there is no loudness button and a decent tone control instead. Set a decent curve for your ears and usually never change it.

As always thanks for your in site guys.

[greg928gts]

To get it to sound real, the only thing that works for me is to crank up the volume until it's what I expect a real performance would be. Only then does a recording come to life.

Common ground! []

Greg

[Chris A]

He asked why there was no "Loudness" control on it considering it was the best you could buy at the time. The answer was that the simple bass and treble controls could do the same job and allow much more flexibility too.

I remember a guy that owned an Olds Toronado in 1983 that had a Bose Sound System on board which had a knob that one could turn multiple revolutions (i.e., the advent of non-analog controls on commercial audio amplifiers) to adjust the loudness function. The probable reason for this one knob: even technology-challenged users could turn the knob until it sounded the way that they wanted it. The amplifier also had a "background noise compensator" that would increase or decrease the amplifier gain and conversely the loudness function as you were driving down the road. (I guess that didn't catch on for most auto audio enthusiasts - but I believe that Bose made its buck on that system.)

Why bring the loudness function up again? With one control, one compensates (more or less) for F-M effects. Treble and bass controls require that the user understand more about the relative effects of the F-M treble and bass compensation curves (equal loudness curves) vs. overall SPL (usually measured in dB).

There were other devices made in the 80s that EQed the sound of then-new CDs so that they sounded like phono records. Bob Carver made his buck doing that after he observed that there was a subtle but systemic difference in time-averaged frequency spectra of both CDs and records. As you know, Carver also developed the "Sonic Holography" processor that did in the amplifier what the Polk SDA monitor did in hardware, i.e., correct cross-aural (ear) cancellation by feeding inverted left channel signal into right channel and vice versa. If you were sitting dead center between the speakers, the effect was amazing, although, I hear that the listener grew fatigued from this over time. All this approximated a Binaural listening experience, albeit without the headphones. Bottom line: this illustrates some historic attempts by audio designers to modify (distort) the linear sound reproduction systems in order to achieve a sound that the user found pleasant and was willing to pay for.

It is interesting that we still talk in absolute terms about "freedom from distortion", but when we actually hear freedom from distortion, the sound is branded as "flat" and "lifeless". [|-)]

Think of it this way, if we were trying to achieve true and accurate reproduction, all stereo systems of increasing quality would all begin to sound exactly the same. [:^)]

Chris [8-|]

[Al Klappenberger]

Chris,

All that just circles back to what each of us is looking for. The instrument nerd like me who wants perfect, undistorted audio reproduction versus the artist who just wants to feel good. To me, all that sort of stuff is like singing in the shower. It sure sounds good, but it isn't real!

Al K.

[Marvel]

... by someone who has actually done recording on a professional basis,

that would be me in a past life.

[Chris A]

To me, all that sort of stuff is like singing in the shower. It sure sounds good, but it isn't real!

Hold that thought...you'll need all you can muster when dealing with "Joe Q Audiobuyer" who is both confused (i.e., says one thing, buys another) and, when presented the choice between faithful audio reproduction and something that...well, isn't...will take the low road, but will insist that they took yet another road...and that their road is "better".

Happy bi-wiring and spiked speaker feet,

Chris [A]