Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linearity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • microstrip
    replied
    Speakers I have lived with that needed to be played loud - Sonus Faber Extrema's, Magnaplenar Timpany and MG3.3, B&W801S3 - curiously not the B&W802S3, Focal Grande Utopia Be. Probably neighbors did notice them, as they could sound great at frightening levels!

    Speakers I have lived with that sounded good at lower levels - Quad ESL63, Audiostatic , any SoundLab, B&W Silver Signature, Sonus Faber Amator, Ensemble PA1 silver (a real champion in this aspect),

    I would place Wilson 7, Maxx3 and X2 , Sonus Faber Aida and Audio Physics Kronos in a middle class between the two preceding ones.

    I would not say that the ESL57 sounded great at lower levels, unless you were very close to them, using them as big headphones.

    All IMHO, surely. Probably the electronics I used with these speakers also influenced the game!

    Leave a comment:


  • david k
    replied
    Originally posted by MylesBAstor View Post

    I think that over the years many terms that initially had positive meanings became associated with negative connotations. For instance accurate became associated with solid-state and hyperdetailed. And musical became associated with tubes and technicoloring. Or even like the old Koetsus. Or like the early SE tube amps. And so on.
    My favorite meaningless term these days is "professional", used at nauseam these for any old thing.

    Leave a comment:


  • MylesBAstor
    replied
    Originally posted by david k View Post
    In context of of subjective analysis, I always thought that "linear" had a somewhat negative connotation mainly because I never heard of linear music !
    I think that over the years many terms that initially had positive meanings became associated with negative connotations. For instance accurate became associated with solid-state and hyperdetailed. And musical became associated with tubes and technicoloring. Or even like the old Koetsus. Or like the early SE tube amps. And so on.

    Leave a comment:


  • david k
    replied
    In context of subjective analysis, I always thought that "linear" had a somewhat negative connotation mainly because I never heard of linear music !
    Last edited by david k; 02-25-2016, 11:06 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • MylesBAstor
    replied
    Originally posted by mep View Post
    One thing I have noticed over the recent years is that the better your system is overall, the better it will sound at low levels compared to systems you used to have. And I do think it's a system thing more than just a speaker thing.
    I think equipment and systems have markedly improved in that regard but many still have a ''sweet spot." Whether that's the system or room is a question. And of course, it's also medium/front-end dependent. That information has to be there to hear too.

    But I still feel electrostatic speakers do reveal more at low listening levels than most dynamic speakers. I think it was Francisco that brought up the Maggies and that's one reason I modded mine.

    Leave a comment:


  • mep
    replied
    One thing I have noticed over the recent years is that the better your system is overall, the better it will sound at low levels compared to systems you used to have. And I do think it's a system thing more than just a speaker thing.

    Leave a comment:


  • MylesBAstor
    replied
    Originally posted by jcmusic View Post
    Guys one really important fact is that we all hear a little different also!!! The word/term Better is subjective depending on who is listening...

    Leave a comment:


  • jcmusic
    replied
    Guys one really important fact is that we all hear a little different also!!! The word/term Better is subjective depending on who is listening...

    Leave a comment:


  • microstrip
    replied
    Originally posted by MylesBAstor View Post

    I think what I was trying to say is do the speaker's have the same resolution at all listening volume levels? If not, that to mean was a deviation from linearity. And I understand that oversimplification comes back and bites you in the behind and becomes like Parkinson's disease. The same symptoms caused by many different things.
    Yes, the loudness level at which speakers play better differs from speaker to speaker - my old Magneplanar 3.3 stayed for a short time because they did not manage to sound good at lower levels. However I have read from people - I think it was Ki - solving this problem with a proper choice of electronics. So perhaps it was not a linearity problem at all ...

    Poor linearity results in distortion, but I think we are addressing it mainly in the subjective sense of perceived dynamic compression. It is interesting you refer to resolution - yes, we feel it that way, but I can not figure how a very small amount of compression results in such large perceived change of resolution. But it is a real fact.

    Leave a comment:


  • MylesBAstor
    replied
    Originally posted by microstrip View Post
    No system is perfectly linear - so what we must consider are "the non- linearities". The word is too broad and can often be meaningless, unless it is specified extensively or by context - just what Bruce did. Almost all manufacturer marketing departments will tell us their systems are more linear than the competition - linearity sells.

    IMHO no one has shown that electrostatic speakers sound better at low volumes than box ones because they are more linear, it is just a rumor and perhaps an interesting debate. And Myles, I do not care if a speaker plays better at 110 dB than at 100 dB.
    I think what I was trying to say is do the speaker's have the same resolution at all listening volume levels? If not, that to mean was a deviation from linearity. And I understand that oversimplification comes back and bites you in the behind and becomes like Parkinson's disease. The same symptoms caused by many different things.

    Leave a comment:


  • microstrip
    replied
    No system is perfectly linear - so what we must consider are "the non- linearities". The word is too broad and can often be meaningless, unless it is specified extensively or by context - just what Bruce did. Almost all manufacturer marketing departments will tell us their systems are more linear than the competition - linearity sells.

    IMHO no one has shown that electrostatic speakers sound better at low volumes than box ones because they are more linear, it is just a rumor and perhaps an interesting debate. And Myles, I do not care if a speaker plays better at 110 dB than at 100 dB.

    Leave a comment:


  • MylesBAstor
    replied
    I think linearity is one area that's improved in equipment over the years. Yesteryear's gear always seemed to one or more readily identifiable deviations from linearity. Nowadays, one has to focus much more closely on the component's sound to identify the same errors.

    Leave a comment:


  • ack
    replied
    Excellent topic! I agree with both of you

    Leave a comment:


  • MylesBAstor
    replied
    Originally posted by Bruce B View Post
    This is one of the basic fundamentals I use in mastering. The first time I audition a piece of music, I look for frequencies or anomalies that stick out. Sometimes it's a night/day experience that you can immediately tell the song was mixed in a poor environment and the engineer tried to compensate for the room/equipment.

    That's fascinating Bruce. Never quite thought about mastering in that sense. Should have!

    Leave a comment:


  • Bruce B
    replied
    This is one of the basic fundamentals I use in mastering. The first time I audition a piece of music, I look for frequencies or anomalies that stick out. Sometimes it's a night/day experience that you can immediately tell the song was mixed in a poor environment and the engineer tried to compensate for the room/equipment.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X