Wideband Speakers

[desktop]

Hey the "nose thing" was a joke. As I mentioned, Tannoy is looking for skeptics to go into any studio equipment pro shop and listen to the Ellipse 8 or 10 Passive loudspeaker. I did and was very surprised. Tannoy Ellipse speakers were used on a traveling AES educational program that toured the USA when the speaker was a new thing, a few years ago.

The tour was mainly for members to hear a 6 position speaker set up plus subwoofers to go over the production blah blah for video 5.1 production 6.x, 7.x et al. The studio material and recording engineers they took around was very nice. I have the blab for the edu program. Spacial resolution seems to work best when the speakers have extended high frequencies was demonstrated well enough for the younger studio cats in the USA. I borrowed a pair for myself.

The demo studio cats from around North America and Europe would each do a little demo of material they had produced using the Ellipse 8 monitors and their own digital production suite that interfaced really well with the Tannoy digital system. The sound was exceptional although we were in a large room. There were videos, commercials, musical sound only, training and theater movies and a number of other types of productions common to TV, movies, internet, CDs and downloads etc. Time delays were discussed along with movie formats from mono to whatever number represented the foreseeable future in 2007/8.

Engineers who were using these systems every day got asked what they had thrown out when those loudspeaker systems were replaced with the Tannoys. I was interested in how many Fostex Studio monitors had been replaced (none) because most of the replaced units were JBL, Westlake or Altec/UREI. The Tannoys sounded much better than any of those 3. I asked as many people as I could what was the reason why they bought the Tannoys and the answer was either, 1) something like "They sounded much cleaner", or "Less cluttered" or " "much easier to work with because I can hear what's going on better.", or #2) "I have a clients who heard them and didn't know what they were but told me they were the best speaker he had ever heard in a studio, so please use them." or "I was asked to remix an old 24 track for George Thorogood or someone similar and when he heard it, he wanted to do the job for sure with me."

One of the demo engineers collected analog multitrack tape machines and could set them up himself. He said being at the console listening through the Tannoy monitors on wideband material was more like listening to a "window of reality" (I understand what he meant). Everyone should try this kind of demo. Sweetwater Sound near Chicago sells them and demos them. They are a studio equipment retailer. They are all around us and a demo at a quiet time in the retailer's store is free.

If everyone recognized that the Tannoy Ellipse 8 was "The emperor's new clothes" then it wouldn't be the consistent seller that it is. It might sell well for a year or two, but it isn't a toy, it's an important expense and has to prove it is better or the word gets around. It is a better loudspeaker than other studio monitors. The Tannoy monitor without the super tweeter didn't sell that well. It's the extended high frequency response that sells this loudspeaker.

But why attack me for reporting on the success of a loudspeaker like the Ellipse 8, when it is a Tannoy product. The best production loudspeaker I used was a pair of Fostex Studio 12 time aligned monitors. I liked them because I had heard them at The JVC Cutting Center. I really like the extended high frequency response out to about 23/24KHz with the Studio 12 Fostex monitors. I often dragged them around in my van going to jobs. But the Tannoys produce better sound IMO.

I'm not trying to justify the Tannoy Ellipse 8 to you or anyone, I just like them, and it's the high end sound from the Tannoy Ellipse 8 I like the most. IMO it's cleaner, as described in the Tannoy literature and website. Everyone else who has heard these Tannoy Ellipse 8 or 10s tells me the same thing, even if they are not professionals and they don't know Tannoy from my uncle. I may be the only one on this forum who has heard the Ellipse 8 and 10, but that doesn't mean they can't be great. I'm not even a fan of compression driver sound.

But what is anyone afraid of? Just go hear a demo of what is the difference of sound to 20KHz and sound out to 40KHz. Anyone who can hear the difference should be allowed to post hear about their listening experiences. No one will hypnotize the person who goes to hear a Tannoy Ellipse 8 or 10. I'm not even suggesting that someone with limited hearing will be able to sense any difference between band limiting at 20KHz and no band limiting when played back on these monitors with extended high frequency response to 40KHz. There shouldn't be anyone out there who can censor a reasonable listening suggestion they don't like. Anyone who thinks that loudspeakers with super extended high frequency response produces better sound compared to a loudspeaker that doesn't, should be able to express themselves here.

I only suggest Tannoy Ellipse 8 or 10 monitors because I use them. But there are numerous high end home loudspeakers that will perform in a similar fashion. ld has his own opinion on whether there can be very noticeable and better sound quality produced from vinyl when a loudspeaker can coherently produce low-distortion sound in the octave 20KHz to 40KHz. The forum needs this kind of input from listeners who go hear demos like this.

It's always better to know more, even if the experience seems to fly in the face of one's beliefs.

[Alec124c41]

Desktop, I think some people don't hear the subtleties, and thus refuse to believe that anybody else can. So they say that rotating a record at close to 33.3 RPM and getting a signal to speakers that have sufficient bandwidth, by any means, is enough.
For others, this is not enough, and to achieve the balance, clarity, phase consistency, etc., is an ongoing project.
It is like, and possibly related, to perfect pitch. Perfect pitch is much more common in Asian populations where the tone of the spoken word is part of the language. Still, some people deny it's existence. I had one salesman in an audio shop tell me that it was impossible for me to tell that Beethoven's Bb mass was playing too fast on my new turntable. It was.
Old saying: Don't argue with fools or madmen.

Cheers,
Alec

[avole]

Old saying: Don't argue with fools or madmen.

Cheers,
Alec

Can't agree more. I suggest leaving this topic to desktop alone now.

Desktop reminds me of a charming old gentlmen I met once while on a Nile cruise. He had once been something high up in the Carter administration, and had been studying Ancient Egypt exhaustively since. I knew little of the subject, I'm afraid to admit, so I listened with great interest to his comment, and the stories he told.

This was a guided tour, and the guide, a thoroughly knowledgable chap, would give a brief lecture followed by a question and answer session. My friend was prominent in the latter, and it became obvious to me that he had a pet theory of the timing of the classic period in Egyptian history, and the events that his theory showed in a certain light were not at all in accord with the explanation the tour guide was giving.

We talked about this over several evenings and glasses of red, until the tour finished or not. The ex-administrator had indeed formulated his own theory, drawn from numerous sources - he was a thoroughly scholarly gent. It was clear, too, that if he were right, the Egyptian historians had a lot of thinking to do. There was a problem, though, which I brought on early on, that of carbon dating.

He was well aware of this, and went through all the known problems of carbon dating, including it's famous inaccuracy. However, and I'll freely admit to not being an expert, it did mean that if the carbon dating used by archaeologists were correct, then his theories were questionable, if not in incorrect.

Now, I do not know to this day whether my friend's theories had substance or not, although they made for enjoyable evenings as the three of us (the tour guide had become interested and joined our little group) debated all manner of topics as the Nile floated gently by. I did and do think, however, that the dating question needed resolution, and that all the evidence was on the side of conventional wisdom. I feel such is the case now. Desktop, who I picture in the white safari suit of my friend, Nikon round his neck, leaning forward over the deck rails to better devour the sights and sounds, needs to prove that humans can hear above the accepted norms, that this ability can be taught, that age apparently causes less deterioration if you're a super listener, and lastly that having 'golden ears' is directly related to the ability to hear above the normal frequency range of human hearing. Until he does, I'm afraid the verdict is always going to be less than positive.

[desktop]

to Alec124c41,
I prefer to stick to analogies that involve some form of sensory physics, instead of bring up all sorts of other kinds of stories. So here is an audio story.

I get to be the one who helps all my extended family members with their sound systems. My brother-in-law uses a generic DD TT that is about 30 years old. That TT was worth what he paid for it for sure (about US$59). He disliked the sound of a variety of his phone cartridges from AT and Orto so for Christmas I installed a 30 year old Stanton 681EE in it. He liked it from the first instant he heard it.

But I didn't like the sound at all. I took the cartridge home and tried it and it sounded great (he had had an Empire 2000ZE first but because of the odd grounding strap situation on the Empire one channel was silent, thus the Stanton). I looked everywhere in the connections thinking the problem was strictly mechanical. Nothing improved what I thought was an indistinct midrange. But he loved the tighter bass and clearer high end he was getting, so I left it.

At a recent get-together, I was watching the neon speed display and I swore I could see it creeping faster and then slowing down, quite a few times. I tried another record and before even setting the needle down, I could see speeding up and slowing down registering on the 60Hz neon speed display. With the needle down on the record the speed variation was worse.

I know that wow and flutter is what is making his sound irritating to me. He should grease/oil the bearing but that is often not worth the money on a DD TT. If his turntable finally smokes up, I'll give him one of many I have stored in my barn in super large freezer baggies. But it was only when I pointed out the pronounced speed variations showing on the neon speed display, while my brother-in-law was listening to one of his fave records, by 10,000 Maniacs, that he could then identify what was happening to the sound, as the strobe display varied faster and slower. Until then he didn't hear this problem.

This is about the millionth time that I have said to someone (about audio), "what's that? To which 99.9% of the time the responder listens briefly and says, "what's what". I'm much better with sounds that shouldn't be there, as opposed to sounds that are missing. But the degree to which we are sound-sensitive probably varies.

In any case I asked a dissenter in the CD vs SACD AES test about it and we realized 2 things. Hiring successful AES people to do audio work isn't always because they have good ears let alone Golden Ears. Sometimes the people who are reknown within the AES are great managers or great at working with other artistic talents. The lack of standards in the test of SACD vs CD sound, and no way to know the hearing acuity of the listeners is a real problem.

But going back to the test to see who could sense high frequencies in sound better than anyone else the AES could find, when the first discussion about CD standards was brewing, there have never been any arguments about the validity and value of that test. That test was designed to test listeers' ability to sense ultra-high frequencies on a "are they there" or "aren't they there" basis.

Discovering a Danish engineer, age 22, who was correct in sensing the ultra-highs needed to score a consistent 90% right score on the test at 80KHz, is kind of cool, I think, but the test showed that dozens of AES engineers can sense the presence of high frequency energy above 40KHz (but sadly not me, even though I was in my late 30s). That test was actually trying to determine whether AES audio people could sense ultra-high frequency energy.

The test equipment had been measured, the program material was measured, the lo pass filters had been measured, and the ability to sense ultra-high frequencies or not, was the variable or unknown. The "decision" is who can sense enough of the high frequency energy, in a double blind test, to score a convincingly high number of correct answers at various levels of cutoff.

In the recent AES test the listeners' hearing is unknown, as is the loudspeaker's ability to produce clean output up to 40KHz. Since those are the real factors involved in the "decision" here, any decision is most likely meaningless. In fact either one of those unknowns can make the results useless.

It really isn't that hard to go listen to a loudspeaker with extended high frequency response. Then you would know for yourselves, whether extended high frequency output is meaningful to you or not. Better to check things to learn for yourself, than to be put off by people who haven't heard these products.

[Ldg]

It really isn't that hard to go listen to a loudspeaker with extended high frequency response. Then you would know for yourselves, whether extended high frequency output is meaningful to you or not.

Yes, but you may still be none the wiser as to whether any perception is real or imagined/phantom. As with so many such inexplicable audiophile things, it seems.

Look, there is no useful content in vinyl at these frequencies. Unless you count in CD4 carrier/sidebands ? That would be like tinnitus Why do you think they put CD4 et al carriers/sidebands there ?

Coincidentally, today I installed a switchable 28kHz low pass filter in a phono preamp. Because I deliberately wanted associated attenuation artifacts that extend below 20kHz to address another issue. This is barely audible to me, but i believe i might pass a blind test. Filter at 28kHz can have audible artifacts that extend into normal audioband. But there's no way I can hear/perceive/smell a 20kHz sine tone, unless there's some IMD going on (as can be the case). One has to be very careful about interpretation. I can detect 28kHz filter in/out because of sub 20kHz audioband filter artifacts. But can't hear 20kHz tones.

[dlaloum]

Question is: what kind of test could be devised that seperates ultraHF sound from its IM's?

All of these tests have demonstrated that the hearers in these specific situations could sense the presence or absence of the UHF - BUT - there has been no investigation of how this was achieved, and whether they were sensing the sound itself, or identifying the intermodulations that are under 20kHz.

If it is the latter - then in an audio reproduction sense it should be considered an undesirable distortion, as the desirable UHF would already have interacted at recording time and that interaction would be on the recording.


I don't believe any of these tests have found a way around this quandary...

bye for now
David

[Rap]

Question is: what kind of test could be devised that seperates ultraHF sound from its IM's?

All of these tests have demonstrated that the hearers in these specific situations could sense the presence or absence of the UHF - BUT - there has been no investigation of how this was achieved, and whether they were sensing the sound itself, or identifying the intermodulations that are under 20kHz.

If it is the latter - then in an audio reproduction sense it should be considered an undesirable distortion, as the desirable UHF would already have interacted at recording time and that interaction would be on the recording.


I don't believe any of these tests have found a way around this quandary...

bye for now
David

Good point David, but it suggests that the recording mike/equipment ,what have you, records sound in the same way the ear/brain hears and filters distortion.

[dlaloum]

Question is: what kind of test could be devised that seperates ultraHF sound from its IM's?

All of these tests have demonstrated that the hearers in these specific situations could sense the presence or absence of the UHF - BUT - there has been no investigation of how this was achieved, and whether they were sensing the sound itself, or identifying the intermodulations that are under 20kHz.

If it is the latter - then in an audio reproduction sense it should be considered an undesirable distortion, as the desirable UHF would already have interacted at recording time and that interaction would be on the recording.


I don't believe any of these tests have found a way around this quandary...

bye for now
David

Good point David, but it suggests that the recording mike/equipment ,what have you, records sound in the same way the ear/brain hears and filters distortion.

I am assuming that the recording contains a correct analog of the sounds present at the recording venue. (regardless of equipment/method) - and yes without a doubt that can be a constraint as well...

But whatever analog of the sound wave(s) is used to store the recording, it still will not record the same way our ear/brain hears and filters distortion - the mechanisms are just way too different.

All we can do is record as wideband as possible with as much precision as we can devise/measure... and hope that it meets the (only partly understood) requirements of our ears!

[Rap]

All we can do is record as wideband as possible with as much precision as we can devise/measure... and hope that it meets the (only partly understood) requirements of our ears!

Yes, your right ofcause, it's just that I've been reading Thorsen Loesch's thoughts on SET'S and he mentions some interesting research by a Patterson in 1969 about "Ear-congruent Distortion" and subsequent brain filtering of said distortions. :arrow: It might explain some of the discrepencies of what we measure as to what we hear?

[avole]

Question is: what kind of test could be devised that seperates ultraHF sound from its IM's?

All of these tests have demonstrated that the hearers in these specific situations could sense the presence or absence of the UHF - BUT - there has been no investigation of how this was achieved, and whether they were sensing the sound itself, or identifying the intermodulations that are under 20kHz.

If it is the latter - then in an audio reproduction sense it should be considered an undesirable distortion, as the desirable UHF would already have interacted at recording time and that interaction would be on the recording.


I don't believe any of these tests have found a way around this quandary...

bye for now
David

Since you seem a sensible person, I'll ask you, David.

Could you please provide references to all these tests, David. There are plenty of hearing tests you can download that prove otherwise, even the mosquito ringtone.

Also please provide proof that sounds above 20khz impact the sound you can hear below. An explanation of how would also be useful. I'd also suggest checking reputably sources, such as universities and government test laboratories, if possible.

Thanks.

P.S. Research into the function and limitations of the middle ear explains why you cannot hear above 20khz, it is the limit for us humans.

[dlaloum]

Hi Avole,

1) The tests I am referring to are the AES tests referred to by desktop (presumably reports are available from the AES for the standard fees..)

2) Actually devising a test that meets these requirements is extremely difficult - takes a LOT of effort..
Speakers need to be set up in an anechoic chamber, the chamber needs to be tested to ensure that all reflections are absorbed at all frequencies
The speakers/setup need to be tested for linearity at all frequencies up to the test limit, and need to also meet other audiophile test criteria (transient response, phase response, etc....)

Obviously the microphones used for this testing need to somehow be tested themselves...

3) Showing that any tone can affect any other tone is simply a matter of physics... I suggest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodulation as an initial reading point. (particularly the section on passive IM and IM in audio applications)

4) Intermodulation does not require that we be able to hear the fundamental tone - it only requires that we be able to sense (given the thrust of the discussion, hearing might be a somewhat limited term) a change.... And if the products of the intermodulation are distortions residing within the 20-20kHz range then there is a high likelihood that we can indeed hear them.

5) Of particular interest is the subsequent question (with reference to Rap's posting...) - which is how does the brain then interpret the additional signals?
Is the additional sense of space and air frequently provided by cartridges with extended phase linear response, due to the high frequencies reproduced (albeit at low levels) - or due to intermodulations of these signals resulting in sounds within the audio range that our brain automatically interprets as higher frequencies... ie are we wired to recognise higher frequencies by their lower frequency IM products?
And this being a very much wired in brain response, may be something that is learnt at very very early age (before 3years) - after which you either have it or not. The sight and hearing processing centres get "programmed" very early on - if they were not programmed at these early stages - it cannot be remedied later...
Which in turn would beg the question.... What early life influences would help a baby to develop "Golden Ears"?
(And yes, I tend strongly towards nurture rather than nature in that specific argument...)

Avole, I agree in questioning the audibility of material over 20kHz.... but if credible sources respond by saying that some proportion (even if it is a small %) of the population can in fact sense something happening beyond 20kHz, then my question is why and how.
The crux of the matter from your perspective, appears to be the credibility of the sources - in which case might I suggest that you look into finding the original AES material desktop mentioned.
Desktop's CV does entitle him to at least a modicum of credibility in this environment - and if you wish to question his substantially supported opinions, I would think the onus would be on you to research the material, and then come back with relevant counter arguments.

(Mate, you ain't got the troops for this battle.... go find yourself some decent cavalry then you might have a chance of outflanking him... oops .... sorry, wrong forum... I always enjoyed military strategy....)

bye for now

David

[avole]

Of course, another approach is to record a single piano note, middle C, which comes in at 261.626Hz on a wide frequency recorder, then play it back in random sequence with filters applied at 20khz, 15khz and 10khz to a test group of, say, 10000 young people . Blind testing obviously.

If the results show that the test group could not pick the difference, then that suggests frequencies within the audible spectrum but above the natural frequency of a note have no impact on our hearing of that note, then that implies frequencies above 20khz have no impact either.

[dlaloum]

The test setup would be just as critical... and the high frequency content of that chosen instrument would be more limited...

A better choice would be a marimba or vibraphone.... with inherent high levels of HF content.

[avole]

Hi Avole,

1) The tests I am referring to are the AES tests referred to by desktop (presumably reports are available from the AES for the standard fees..)

2) Actually devising a test that meets these requirements is extremely difficult - takes a LOT of effort..
Speakers need to be set up in an anechoic chamber, the chamber needs to be tested to ensure that all reflections are absorbed at all frequencies
The speakers/setup need to be tested for linearity at all frequencies up to the test limit, and need to also meet other audiophile test criteria (transient response, phase response, etc....)

Obviously the microphones used for this testing need to somehow be tested themselves...

3) Showing that any tone can affect any other tone is simply a matter of physics... I suggest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodulation as an initial reading point. (particularly the section on passive IM and IM in audio applications)

4) Intermodulation does not require that we be able to hear the fundamental tone - it only requires that we be able to sense (given the thrust of the discussion, hearing might be a somewhat limited term) a change.... And if the products of the intermodulation are distortions residing within the 20-20kHz range then there is a high likelihood that we can indeed hear them.

5) Of particular interest is the subsequent question (with reference to Rap's posting...) - which is how does the brain then interpret the additional signals?
Is the additional sense of space and air frequently provided by cartridges with extended phase linear response, due to the high frequencies reproduced (albeit at low levels) - or due to intermodulations of these signals resulting in sounds within the audio range that our brain automatically interprets as higher frequencies... ie are we wired to recognise higher frequencies by their lower frequency IM products?
And this being a very much wired in brain response, may be something that is learnt at very very early age (before 3years) - after which you either have it or not. The sight and hearing processing centres get "programmed" very early on - if they were not programmed at these early stages - it cannot be remedied later...
Which in turn would beg the question.... What early life influences would help a baby to develop "Golden Ears"?
(And yes, I tend strongly towards nurture rather than nature in that specific argument...)

Avole, I agree in questioning the audibility of material over 20kHz.... but if credible sources respond by saying that some proportion (even if it is a small %) of the population can in fact sense something happening beyond 20kHz, then my question is why and how.
The crux of the matter from your perspective, appears to be the credibility of the sources - in which case might I suggest that you look into finding the original AES material desktop mentioned.
Desktop's CV does entitle him to at least a modicum of credibility in this environment - and if you wish to question his substantially supported opinions, I would think the onus would be on you to research the material, and then come back with relevant counter arguments.

(Mate, you ain't got the troops for this battle.... go find yourself some decent cavalry then you might have a chance of outflanking him... oops .... sorry, wrong forum... I always enjoyed military strategy....)

bye for now

David

Er, no, actually I have the scientific community on my side, and you should see the size of their chargers!

As you'd be well aware, one set of tests, particularly using methodology that is questionable, is not good proof, scientific or otherwise. As the vast majority of evidence suggests otherwise, it is up to the AES, as represented by the honourable desktop, to supply the proof before any investigation takes place.

Unfortunately, when questioned said person has replied with assertions that are a long way from any kind of proof, scientific or otherwise. The problem for him and the AES is that hearing tests are easy to perform, readily available and indicate that 20khz is the cut off point for a young adult at the peak of his or her hearing abilities. I note that the honourable D hasn't mentioned what his hearing is according to standard tests, which is a strange omission, since he has to prove that those tests are flawed.

As it stands there is zero proof that sounds above 20khz have any impact on sounds below. All that exists, at the moment, is merespeculation, and that doesn't merit serious examination until one of the speculators can prove otherwise.

Make no mistake, the onus is entirely on the honourable D here, since it is he who is trying to turn science on its head, and so far he has failed entirely to do more than bang on about one series of tests and his mates.

Don't get fooled by the pseudoscience, not that there has even been much of that here, nor the constant repetition of the same points, but note instead the failure to answer direct questions, and the deliberate obfuscations.

The emperor's lack of clothes is becoming obvious.