Frequency Response 23khz and above??

[pauln]

And I thought this thread was going to be about the need for frequency response 23KHz and above... for amplifiers!

[oldbuckster]

OUCH, who's blowing the dam dog whistle ??????

[ZAKO]

Paulin,,, Sure I alway thought wide bandwith amps sounded better. But not from zero to the speed of light.

[IndyKlipschFan]

The high frequency claims of some audiophiles (not anyone here of
course) has aways given me a chuckle, so just a little lighthearted
jest. Along the same lines it is funny on some of the musician sites I
visit where everyone has perfect pitch. Those guys are fun to rib a
little.

Andy

OK, Yes most have never had it checked out.. true.. Hearing tests, again if your lucky, go to 12k.

Not everyone has perfect pitch... I can tell you if you have sung for many years you do in fact "hear" it.. Now being able to reproduce it is another thing... Give me a basis of a few notes or a chord on a piano I could easily tell you the other notes..Chord progressions etc. I used to be able to probably come back to it later, too, and still be in key. Some notes are in your head if you do it long enough...

I think that is what most people mean by "Perfect Pitch." Your around it so much, you can hear a note and know exactly where it is, and everything else is around you just as you understand on a b flat clarinet in tune what it should sound like. Now the voice .. the human voice with incredible overtones and harmonics and resonating with control is the hardest "instrument" to tune. But it is also the beauty in music to change it, and bend those notes with phrasing as you sing too. Some of the best singers really manipulate the phrasing and note for note are NOT per se on key 100% of the time.

But your right... very few people develop perfect pitch. Very very few!

Intellectually constipated audiophiles are fun! << woops...truth hurts!

[DrWho]

reflections

Of what, times gone by?

Imperfect horns.

[DrWho]

Wide bandwidth means better transient behavior.

So 20Hz to 640Hz (5 octaves) has "better" transient behavior?

Compared to a driver that has 4 octaves of linear pistion output (20-320Hz), yes.

What about the 4 octaves of 40-640Hz? Or how bout 80-1280Hz?

Or to get to the point...

How are 'you' definining transient response? If you're talking about the rise time of an impulse, then qualitatively you're saying the same thing as quoting the frequency response. So although you keep quoting the math, I don't understand why you provide waterfall plots as if they are showing you anything different...especially when you're trying to argue that speakers (horns) are always minimum phase.

In my experience, it seems when most people are trying to qualitatively describe "transient response", usually they're describing how damped/undamped the system is. You can have two systems with the same bandwidth, but different spectral decay. Of course that means that one or both of them isn't minimum phase...

[DrWho]

And I thought this thread was going to be about the need for frequency response 23KHz and above... for amplifiers!

Well...for amplifiers (or at least the gain stages in the amplifier), that need would be way incredibly higher if you wanted to maximize the use of feedback to reduce distortion. Of course the higher you go, the more noise immune the circuit needs to be...parasitics of wires and traces become an issue too.

But that's a totally different topic [A]

[John Warren]

How are 'you' definining transient response?

It's not my definition.

Transient response is the amplitude response of an impulse as a function of time.

[DrWho]

How are 'you' definining transient response?

It's not my definition.

Transient response is the amplitude response of an impulse as a function of time.

So why post the waterfall?

[John Warren]

How are 'you' definining transient response?

It's not my definition.

Transient response is the amplitude response of an impulse as a function of time.

So why post the waterfall?

,

Edited April 22, 2014 by John Warren

[John Warren]

Wide bandwidth means better transient behavior. A tweeter with say, 2 1/2 octaves of bandwidth (4-24kHz) has better transient behavior that one with 2 (4-16kHz).

Technically correct, practically irrelevant. case.

Don-

I approach the issue this way. Given two tweeters, knowing nothing else about them but linear region of the amplitude response (SPL vs. Frequency) and efficiency, the tweeter with the broadest bandwidth will have the better transient response.

You mention it will sound better due to "other factors" and the other factors are that the *audible* frequencies will have better transient response than those present in the lower bandwidth tweeter.

jw

[Klipschguy]

The high frequency claims of some audiophiles (not anyone here of course) has aways given me a chuckle, so just a little lighthearted jest. Along the same lines it is funny on some of the musician sites I visit where everyone has perfect pitch. Those guys are fun to rib a little.

Andy

OK, Yes most have never had it checked out.. true.. Hearing tests, again if your lucky, go to 12k.

Not everyone has perfect pitch... I can tell you if you have sung for many years you do in fact "hear" it.. Now being able to reproduce it is another thing... Give me a basis of a few notes or a chord on a piano I could easily tell you the other notes..Chord progressions etc. I used to be able to probably come back to it later, too, and still be in key. Some notes are in your head if you do it long enough...

I think that is what most people mean by "Perfect Pitch." Your around it so much, you can hear a note and know exactly where it is, and everything else is around you just as you understand on a b flat clarinet in tune what it should sound like. Now the voice .. the human voice with incredible overtones and harmonics and resonating with control is the hardest "instrument" to tune. But it is also the beauty in music to change it, and bend those notes with phrasing as you sing too. Some of the best singers really manipulate the phrasing and note for note are NOT per se on key 100% of the time.

But your right... very few people develop perfect pitch. Very very few!

Intellectually constipated audiophiles are fun! << woops...truth hurts!

Indy,

Perect pitch has really been a plague for me. If my cat quit purring in B-flat I don't know what I'd do. ....just kidding.

Although I am a classical guitar guy, I agree with you that the human voice is the most beautiful instrument ever designed. (Wish my voice was better.)

BTW, when stuffy musicians are claiming perfect pitch they know quite well they are claiming that 1 in 10,000 thing, not relative pitch. I have read Chopin had for real perfect pitch. Brilliant guy died @ 39 years old.

Andy

[Don Richard]

I approach the issue this way. Given two tweeters, knowing nothing else about them but linear region of the amplitude response (SPL vs. Frequency) and efficiency, the tweeter with the broadest bandwidth will have the better transient response.

The way I approach the issue is to realize that, since both tweeters that you described extend beyond the limits of human hearing, the one with the 24kHz response will not audibly improve the transient response of the loudspeaker system if it is swapped for the one that goes to 20 kHz.

You mention it will sound better due to "other factors" and the other factors are that the *audible* frequencies will have better transient response than those present in the lower bandwidth tweeter.

Just exactly how is this happening? There is no audible mechanism in humans that can cause what you are talking about.

[Guest IVstringer]

No one has asked the following questions....

1. As much as frequency response vs. transient response is being used to apply to transducers, what about asking the same questions about the ear, another (and highly relevant) transducer?

2. If the human ear's "frequency response" is measured using single-frequency sine waves, are we using the wrong gauge?

Some may interpret these questions to mean that I am arguing "for" the above 20k crowd. That is absolutely not my intention. Rather, it is interesting to me to see such interesting discussion about drivers, but not applying the same logic towards the ear.

[John Warren]

Don-

If I've got a 6-20kHz tweeter and a 6-24kHz tweeter wouldn't the impulse response (time to -10dB) of the 6-24kHz tweeter be, in principle and knowing nothing else of the two, shorter for a fixed initial amplitude response? If that's the case then I would expect the 6-24kHz to have better transient behavior across the whole bandwidth both audible and inaudible.

[jacksonbart]

I can't hear above 23kHz, but I do have x-ray vision and I can fly.

[Don Richard]

I can't hear above 23kHz, but I do have x-ray vision and I can fly.

Two out of three ain't bad[]

[Don Richard]

If I've got a 6-20kHz tweeter and a 6-24kHz tweeter wouldn't the impulse response (time to -10dB) of the 6-24kHz tweeter be, in principle and knowing nothing else of the two, shorter for a fixed initial amplitude response? If that's the case then I would expect the 6-24kHz to have better transient behavior across the whole bandwidth both audible and inaudible.

So what you are saying is that the only way you would know that is to look at a graph of impulse response? Because you can't hear it? Hmmmm.

[ZAKO]

He might not have xray vision,,, But he does have good insite.

[Don Richard]

No one has asked the following questions....

1. As much as frequency response vs. transient response is being used to apply to transducers, what about asking the same questions about the ear, another (and highly relevant) transducer?

2. If the human ear's "frequency response" is measured using single-frequency sine waves, are we using the wrong gauge?

Transient response is defined by the upper frequencies detectable by the ear, in this case, the human ear. By definition, the ear cannot detect what it cannot hear. If those frequencies that steepen the rise time cannot be heard, no improvement in transient response will be detected.

Single frequencies are precisely the information that the ear provides to the brain for decoding into the sounds that we hear. The sounds that we hear are complex waveforms made up of many single frequencies. The ear behaves exactly like an FFT, breaking down the complex waveform that describes that complex waveform at that instant in time into the individual frequencies that comprise that waveform. Any single frequency can exist only as a sine wave.

Not only does the ear present various single frequencies of various amplitudes simultaneously to the brain for decoding, but the frequency scale is presented logarithmically, just like the frequency display on an FFT graph. So the FFT machine's output correlates very well to the psychoacoustics of hearing sounds.