Topic: Are your speakers analytical/hyperdetailed? List them here!

[Kevlar]

Whew!  This thread is fun and amusing! 

I think the argument all boils down to the definition of high fidelity
music reproduction.   What is high fidelity music reproduction?

High fidelity music reproduction is music reproduction that gets you
as close as possible to experiencing 'the sound of the live performance'. 
The 'you are there' feeling.

Question:
Are there  absolute standards on how to achieve that sound?
If there are, what are the internationally accepted equipment, playback
and recording standards?  Absolute figures please, not vague, descriptive
adjectives. 

If you can't answer the question above, then there are obviously no standards
to speak of and you have no right to label anybody's equipment, playback
method and recording method as 'not hi-fi' and 'merely euphonic', get it?   

- Kevlar

[hattori_hanzo]

okey guys back to the topic, at least nagkaroon tayo ng palitan ng kuro-kuro, by the way parehas din pala ang audio world sa world of culinary, kung sa audio world ang mga audiophiles may critisism sa bawat isa the same with the exec chef's may kanya kanya pintas sa luto nila :Dhehehe!

So folks ano ba talga ang hyperdetailed speakers sa inyo? by the way, is there such a word "analytical" that will apply sa mga speakers? ang alam ko, sa mga sound engineers na gumawa ng speakers pwedeng applicable yon.

Anyways, I can share with you my expirience, I started to become interested in Audio and I did my own study and research way back 1989 until now with my father as my mentor, by the ways he's an audio engineer designed many audio rooms, hotels and directed some audio rig's that time. My rig started originally sa professional audio tipong mono block amp dedicated each High's-Mid's-Low speakers.

As per my expirience basta complete arrticulated array driver's ang speaker then tunned properly, maganda ang lalabas, pero walang speakers na makakaproduce ng exact 100% sound recording ng isang artist. laging may tolerances +/-, kahit pa super mahal ng speakers na ito.

Those days are the era of discovering the audio world, kaya naman wala pang 5.1 noon, meron lang mono, stereo, quadrosonic. pero nung time na discover yung "high fidelity" or yung word na "hi-fi" as according to the information I gathered, eh its a rise of an audio sound from a single full range speaker into a complete array that can produce as much as possible, 20khz to 20hz. yung tipong ma mi-mimic yung actual sound.

yung speakers na ginagamit nga sa recording studio, hindi pa rin kaya iproduce yung audio ng artist, pero nasa kabilang room lang yon at glass lang ang pagitan, super ganda at class A na ang mga gears dun.

Even Mr. Lucas of THX can't produce the actual reproduction of sound.    

Pero alam naman natin dito na hindi pa na iinvent ang speakers that can reproduce an actual sound of the environment, kahit nga a simple grader ma-didistiguish kung actual ang sound na naririnig niya or just a sound coming from a speakers.

so reality check lang, speakers are there just to entertain and highten our self with pleasure.

same as watching TV's or reading book's kung book worm ka, just like that.

Anyways, based on my audio auditioning expirience, according to brand:

Dai-chi (Very good and cheap, somehow with quality)
Konzert (Loud and boomy, Originally started and designed for autosound)
Crown (locally professional)
JBL (Internationally known and one of the bechmark in the audio industry)
Cerwin Vega! (The loudest speakers I've heard, famous for long throw folded horn bass bins)
BOSE (Virtually invinsible and highly talked about by critics and bose bashers)
Def. tech. (30Khz? known for the side firing subwoofers in which by the way immitated by many including dai-ichi)  

B&W (nice colors and looks)
NHT (lacks marketing)
MShort (Good and short)
Sonus Faber (Sosyal!!!)
Velodyne (Piano or speakers?)
 
and other famous, high-end, low-end local and imported brand Etc. etc...

Pero isa pa lang ang masasabi kong hyperdetailed speakers na narinig ko but I can't afford.

Martin Logan (no comment!) coz I was stunned...

 

[av_phile1]

Whew!  This thread is fun and amusing! 

Actually, it's not just amusing, it's downright silly.

I think the argument all boils down to the definition of high fidelity
music reproduction.   What is high fidelity music reproduction?

The definition is quite simple.  Do not confuse the definition with personal listening choices and biases.

High fidelity music reproduction is music reproduction that gets you
as close as possible to experiencing 'the sound of the live performance'. 
The 'you are there' feeling.

No and I say it again a million times.  High Fidelity has nothing to do with illusory "you are there" emotional feelings.  Have you heard about Lo-Fi and Mid-Fi?  They can also elicit the same illusory feelings..  Even teenagers get them listening to MP3s on their I-pods.  But there's nothing, absolutely nothing High Fidelity about MP3s.  Capiche? 

Question:
Are there  absolute standards on how to achieve that sound?
If there are, what are the internationally accepted equipment, playback
and recording standards?  Absolute figures please, not vague, descriptive
adjectives. 

The Hi-Fi definition implies an objective, a goal and a journey.  Playback Hi-fi aims for faithfulness to the orginal recording.  The objective is absolute.  It is NOT a moving target.  But the conditions to achieve that goal are not as there are many systems with varying specs to achieve that goal and there are stops along the road towards it.   The objective is even measureable.  Because you can always graphically get a snapshot plot and compare the input signal character (from a  player) to the speaker's accoustic signal as captured by a high bandwidth microphone and compare how different or similar the waveforms are.  It might never look identical, but the more similar, the closer you are to the goal.  But that's the techie part.  You can always listen on a headphone from a player and compare that to the sound on a headphone from your amp.  The idea is the same, faithfullness to the recording.  You won't get there in one swoop, that's why the road is filled with stops along the way, with one upgrade milestone over another.  And at anytime you want to give up on the Hi Fi route, which can be furstrating as many have done, you can always opt to go the Euphonic route. 

If you can't answer the question above, then there are obviously no standards
to speak of and you have no right to label anybody's equipment, playback
method and recording method as 'not hi-fi' and 'merely euphonic', get it?   

- Kevlar

Very funny.    Merely euophonic???  That's an indictment to you and the class of audiophiles who have gone the euphonic route.  Tsk Tsk. You obviously prefer to tailor suit the sound to meet you ear's preference.  That's euphonic.  There's nothing wrong with that.  But there's nothing hi-fi about that, either.   A lot of audiophiles go to a large extent to achieve euphony in their gears.  Audiophiles with marvelous SETs, VTLs and turntables often opt for the euphonic route.  They prefer that to anything Hi-fi-ish.  But still without the aid of tone shaping devices.  Because they know those tone shaping devices wreak havoc to their signals.  Going the euphonic route is another equally valid road to sonic nirvana.  Going Hi Fi is another.  Hindi ni-la-lang lang yun. 

[av_phile1]

Martin Logan (no comment!) coz I was stunned...

 

Stunning performance ba??

[av_phile1]

yung speakers na ginagamit nga sa recording studio, hindi pa rin kaya iproduce yung audio ng artist, pero nasa kabilang room lang yon at glass lang ang pagitan, super ganda at class A na ang mga gears dun.

Even Mr. Lucas of THX can't produce the actual reproduction of sound.

   

Well said.  If you check my earlier post,  a recording and the actual performance of that reccording can be miles apart.  A recording can only attempt to capture the sound of a live performance.  Some say it's only 20% of the sound of a real thing.    So to even claim that a home playback system is supposed to reproduce real live sounds is a dellusion. 

Pero alam naman natin dito na hindi pa na iinvent ang speakers that can reproduce an actual sound of the environment, kahit nga a simple grader ma-didistiguish kung actual ang sound na naririnig niya or just a sound coming from a speakers.

so reality check lang, speakers are there just to entertain and highten our self with pleasure.

You got it is spot on.  The average home playback system is cluttered with so many variables for it to reproduce the same qualities of a live musical performance.   The most that you can expect it to do, is to playback the records as faithfully as it can.   

[markmlists]

The definition is quite simple.  Do not confuse a definition with personal listening choices and biases.

No and I say it again a million times.  High Fidelity has nothing to do with illusory "you are there" emotional feelings.  Have you heard about Lo-Fi and Mid-Fi?  They can also elicit the same illusory feelings..  Even teenagers get them listening to MP3s on their I-pods.  But there's nothing, absolutely nothing High Fidelity about MP3s.  Capiche? 
 

If I may share my humble opinion.....I agree With AV_phile with the definitions.
No one is criticizing one or the other naman; nor are the other senior member saying hi-fi is superior or euphonic is superior as they fully subscribe to the fact that preference takes precedence over standards-in your room. However, there will be no point of argument if a standard has not been defined so they defined it.

And no, brands do not make a hifi/euphonic sound. Use a raon brand amp and speakers to pursue your goal of a faithful playback and that is hifi; on the other hand ,use the same Raon brand gears with the goal of shaping the sound to be pleasing to the ears and that is euphonic. Nothing wrong with any or both and nothing is superior than the other merely because you as a user is just pursuing a goal. Just my thoughts.

[hattori_hanzo]

I agree with AV_phile...

[ricky]

Firstly, the brands I mentioned were just for comparison, for discussion's sake w/c unfortunately registered negative impressions on some of the posters. I apologize for the confusion.

Secondly, it was not my intention to look down on someone else's gears. The ones I've owned are also just entry-levels. But they were enough to introduce me into the world of Hi-Fi and sonic bliss.

I agree that we should audition. I also agree that specs don't matter. But only when I'm choosing gears.

My understanding of Hi-Fi, obviously differs from yours. With Hi-Fi, for me, specs matter. With Hi-Fi, for me, measuring instruments, not the ears should decide.

Again, my apologies to those offended.

ok LANG BRO,ako naman mababaw lang,concern ko lang eh yung mga fellow members natin na just starting in this hobby,baka after reading all the technical arguments eh hindi na makabili ng starting system nila sa kakapili kung ano talaga ang maganda.

[aHobbit]

No and I say it again a million times.  High Fidelity has nothing to do with illusory "you are there" emotional feelings.  Have you heard about Lo-Fi and Mid-Fi? 

O nagdagdag ka pa ng ide-define mo!!!     

Di mo nga masagot ano ang standard para masabing hi-fi...

ngayon may mid-fi ka na at lo-fi!!!     

Sige nga, i-define ninyo ang mid-fi at lo-fi this time...

... dami sinusulat, wala pa rin ang sagot - straight to the point.     

noong una, sabi niya hi-fi is a standard, then later it became a concept. A concept is something that resides in the head - like ideal fidelity - a goal to attain. A standard is specific, with measurable metrics, as in 'HIGH' fidelity, or hi-fi (or mid-fi, or lo-fi).

When do you consider a system a mid-fi, a hi-fi, or a lo-fi? Palagay ko naman some of you are engineers. Can you tell this thread the metrics?

Actually, it's not just amusing, it's downright silly.

  Indeed! Indeed! A measurable standard that cant be defined by people who preaches it is indeed amusing ... and silly!!!       

[ricky]

Bro ahobbit peace man Im very sure av phile is sharing his thoughts to us not to just piss you off.If in anyway you find his points unacceptable then just let it be or try to point it out in a nice way just like what he is doing.Im not taking sides here but if you will not stop with your sarcastic remarks i dont think you and the other guys in this thread will ever meet eye to eye with our objectives.Just let it go bro, breath in breath out oooolah. have a nice weekend to all of us.

[aHobbit]

I am not pissed off! I just find his post simply evading the issue being discussed by hiding thru run arounds and babbles and dont go straight to the point. kaya ayoko siyang kalaro sa bahay bahayan!!!     


Housecleaning po!!!

... No need to agonized  waiting for the answers from people who sound they know the hi-fi standards and can not give the metrics - just quote endlessly, and the answer is still not there.   

In some forums I have been, the talk when they try to design their amplifiers, is how real the sonic performance of a system - the depth, the sound stage, etc etc.   

Of course, the goal of majority (repeat, majority) of audio manufacturer (ideally) is to attain high-fidelity  . How high is high  ? As high as they can produce  . Thus, for an amplifier, fidelity is typically measured by the flatness of frequency response at a given resistive load and power. For a speaker, it is the flatness of its frequency response across a specific (again, specific, not the whole audio spectrum) given frequency range (not 20-20khz, obviously because very few speaker reproduce such, and manufacturing a speaker reproducing such could be beyond economical practicality and usability). The same for audio sources (CDs, phono, etc).

But merely combining individual qualified hi-fi gear - does not necessarily equate to same level of fidelity measurement attributed to each gear when mesured individually      . A 90% near fidelity CD (if there is one) + a 90% near fidelity amp + a 90% near fidelity speaker system, when combined, will not necessarily produce 90% near-fidelity sonic performance - some synergy will just bring you to much lower fidelity measurement.

Why?

Speaker has impedance curve that is not flat across a given frequency range (where it is said to be of high fidelity). The specs that people read (the basis of their fidelity,    ) in amps are measured on a resistive load and certain power point. And when these two (2) high level fidelity equipment now put into synergy, then it is another jungle out there to manage, the stability of an amp to handle varying load (impedance) will now be highlighted/put to test. Can you ('spec' audiophile) see it in the specs?       Did you bring your audio meter to validate the synergy and conclude they are indeed of high level fidelity? .Woe .. audiophiles and pharisees, unless you are telling us here you are also being euphonic when you bought your system (from source to speakers), since you dont rely on ears to determine high fidelity. What a lip service you have !!!   

Thus, some well-off audiophile will further bring their synergy to the nextstep to attain higher level of fidelity, by taking measurement, and employing corrective steps into it. Practically, it is to even out frequency response in the listening spot. The problem of some 'audiophile' here is that when people employ gadgets and do 'alteration' in the signal path to improve final sonic fidelity of their systemsynergy, they say he is hi-fi oriented - because he has measuring gadgets. When the same 'so called' audiophile noted that if some people just uses his ears to improve the level of fidelity of his systemsynergy, he is just being merely euphonics - so they stereo-typed their ears (which can not identify level of fidelity) as if their ears is like the ears of others that can not make judgment of any level of fidelity.   

While people who agreed here on the definition of concept of hi-fi by avphile, and his metric to determine what is considered hi-fi (this one, no matter how I flip this thread, I cant see, and I dont know what a certain person agrees to  ), these agreeing people talk of 2 different things. Avphile1 points to recording fidelity, while the other one talked about real-performace fidelity. Beats me!

In DIY community where some high-end products evolves, the question that typically emanates is: how close is the sound to a real piano, to a real violin, and to whatever - not how close it is to the recording  ! The goal of fidelity is to capture the real thing - not the recording. The goal of the recording is to capture the real thing - the ideal fidelity. The recording strive to capture piano as piano. Your system (synergy) goal should be the ideal fidelity, the real piano, which your recording also did strive to capture. So you wanted your gears (the system setup) to reproduce piano as piano. We wanted to hear a piano as piano,and not a ukelele.

And how will a person judge whether a piano is a piano? by using his audio meter?       

Even in live performance, sonic performance differs by person, depending on your location in the performance venue. Some people who bought the expensive ticket can sit in front of the performer. Some poor guys sit at the back. Are you telling me it is the same level of sonic performance theywill be able to lhear to? Even Yamaha in all its excellent DSPs, established their parameters before taking an image of algorhythms to recreate a certain sonic performance at a specified location in a popular concert venue - still wanted to capture real performance - fidelity to the real thing.

Clearly, some disguised have concocted their own definition of fidelity - it is the faithfulness to the recording (this is just limited to amplifier as a stand alone) but not applicable to whole system synergy. But the concept of fidelity is to capture the real thing, the original signal, the original sound - and this is also the goal recording is trying to achieve - that a sound it captured will be delivered to us the same way - unaltered (if they really intended to do it), unless the recording studio are merely euphonics themselves, forcing their own sound as they want based on their heads, who knows?  .

And you can judge a person that he is merely euphonic if he wants a piano to sound a ukelele. Or that person has been proven not to hear a real piano in all his life!!!

I assume some of you dont use your ears to determine the fidelity of a piano sound, or you just assume your system, as is, will put out the fidelity of a piano no matter what, what reaches your ears do not matter or else you will succumb to be euphonics!

When will be the time, the record wanted us to hear, as is - probably in sound effect, as in HT implementations where all fictional sounds abounds. This time, your DSP should be accurate. hi-fi?   

    

Kahaba naman nire!     

[obey]

I'm not taking sides here.  Both camps have valid arguments and have supported their claims well.  The only elements missing in the discussion are respect and courtesy for other posters.   We can always disagree in an agreeable manner.  All of the issues discussed here are just concepts which may or may not even hold true in reality.  I mean, who cares if you use tone controls or not?  That's for you to decide.  As for me, you  could call my listening style whatever you want be it euphonic, hi-fi, or any other name.  I won't get hurt or offended.  I don't care as long as I enjoy listening to my system.    Just don't force  me to alter the settings of my amp et al. to suit your taste then force me to like it that way.  Dun siguradong mag-aaway tayo   Peace to you all! 

[Kevlar]

Playback Hi-fi aims for faithfulness to the orginal recording.  The objective is absolute. 

Geez, you are avoiding the real definition of 'high fidelity music reproduction'
by talking about a completely different topic altogether: 'playback hi-fi'.

I am not talking about 'playback hi-fi' or 'playback fidelity'.  I am talking about
'high fidelity music reproduction'.

I'd like to state again the definition of 'high fidelity music reproduction':
High fidelity music reproduction is 'music reproduction that brings you as close
as possible to experiencing the sound of the live performance' nothing more,
nothing less.

What we are comparing here is the 'reproduced sound' to the 'sound of the live performance'.
The closer the 'reproduced sound' is to the sound of 'live instruments', 'real voices',
and the 'acoustic signature' of the live performance, in short, the 'live performance itself', 
the 'higher fidelity' is the 'reproduced sound'. 

Now, do you agree with this definition of 'high fidelity music reproduction'?

Do you realize now that 'playback hi-fi' doesn't always guarantee
'higher fidelity music reproduction' than any other playback method,
and that it is completely possible that 'customized playback' may in fact,
bring you closer to 'higher fidelity music reproduction'?

- Kevlar

[shuttertrigger]

 

[av_phile1]

Geez, you are avoiding the real definition of 'high fidelity music reproduction'
by talking about a completely different topic altogether: 'playback hi-fi'.

I am not talking about 'playback hi-fi' or 'playback fidelity'.  I am talking about
'high fidelity music reproduction'.

I'd like to state again the definition of 'high fidelity music reproduction':
High fidelity music reproduction is 'music reproduction that brings you as close
as possible to experiencing the sound of the live performance' nothing more,
nothing less.

What we are comparing here is the 'reproduced sound' to the 'sound of the live performance'.
The closer the 'reproduced sound' is to the sound of 'live instruments', 'real voices',
and the 'acoustic signature' of the live performance, in short, the 'live performance itself', 
the 'higher fidelity' is the 'reproduced sound'. 

Now, do you agree with this definition of 'high fidelity music reproduction'?

Do you realize now that 'playback hi-fi' doesn't always guarantee
'higher fidelity music reproduction' than any other playback method,
and that it is completely possible that 'customized playback' may in fact,
bring you closer to 'higher fidelity music reproduction'?

- Kevlar

As should be quite clear in my earlier posts on the matter, High Fidelity has two areas, whether you like it or not.  Playback Hi-fi and Recording Hi Fi.  The two objectives are entirely different.  There is no promise of seamlessness between the two.  The recording process ends with a record, a CD or LP.  Those products have no preferrence on what playback gears are to be used.  OTH, the playback process ends with accoustic waveforms meant to reach the listener's ears.  Those waveforms, coming as they are from recrods, will never even come close to the waveforms before they were captured on the record.  It is the height of illusion, correction, dellusion, to even think that playback can ever reproduce the waveforms that were attempted to be captured on record.

High Fidelity starts with the Recording process.  Recording High Fidelity aims to capture the sounds of a musical performance whether live or not as faithfully as it can.  But the most it can, given the state of technology used, is to come close.  This sonic REPLICA can only approximate, not duplicate the waveforms that went into the recording process.  But the objective is clear and that has been the impetus in every recording technological iteration over the last century.

Playback High Fidelity is no more successful.  Given the state of technology used in the playback process, it aims to faithfully reproduce what is contained in a recording the best way it can.  It doesn't aim to reproduce what real instruments sound like.  Nor does it aim to produce goose bumps or an illusion of a live performance.  Playback High Fidelity simply aims to be faithful to the recording.  If in the process, depending on the listener and the degree to which the faithfullness to the recording is accomplished, the high fidelity process can impart goose bumps or illusion of a real performance, then that's just a personal subjective effect of unleashing a playback high fidelity system.  Not the objective.

And since we started talking about speakers, we are really talking about home playback high fidelity.  That's what we have at home.  And there's nothing consumers can do about recording fidelity except to buy the record or not.  When you play that record at home, the most that a high fidelity home playback equipment can do is to reproduce the information contained in the recording as faithfully as it can.  Nothing more, nothing less.  A record is what you start with whenever you use a playback home system.  Your system can never go beyond what you started with.  Ofcourse you can color the sound that reaches your ears using tone controls and equalizers to suit your taste.  But you're not going beyond a record, you're mutilating the record with your personal biases.  Hence, you are not being faithfull to the record, you are just giving reign to your preferrences.  The fact that you mutiliated the signals using phase-shifting and distorting tone shapers gurantees that you've flouted the objective of HighFidelity.

There are certain facts held unassailable in the high fidielity industry.  One of these is  there is no such thing as LIVE REFERENCE for any recorded musical performance.  What you get on CDs and LPs is a RECORDING MIX or a STUDIO MIX that is entirely a sonic production that stands on it own.  There is no reference, live or not, on whether the sound on a record is correct or not.  It is a production, Not even a reproduction.  A record is a product of the recording engineers and artists who heard the sounds from a set of monitor speakers.  It is created using a mix of various dubs and overdubs from different large multi-track multichannel open reels, whether digital or analog and laid down into tracks or downmixed into stereo masters using studio-grade monitor speakers.    Even the live concert events as captured on record will never sound the same as what the audience heard from large JBl or altec lansing speakers or from the accoustics of a theater.  Different microphone qualities and placements can only attempt to capture the soncs, not duplicate them. In other words, the records we use are NOWHERE near live real sounds.  Recordings, even from the finest labels, are an approximation, way way different from how the real live musical instruments sound.  Like I said, some pundits even say they're just 20%.  The more complex the musical piece, the less recording fidelity is atttainable.  But a record still carries the stamp of approval from the artists and record engineers who know how their records should sound  based on their best judgement after being exposed to live instruments more often than ordinary joes are.  And I have no reason to think I should know better.  Their best is the most I can expect, just a recording production, a close REPLICA, but never the real thing.   While the recording objective aims to capture a performance as faithfully as possible, the end result is often aritifcial, with reverbs added, overdubs made, panned from one channel to another, or even equalized and compressed as in most new age, synthesizer, pop, fusion jazz, rock, country and disco recordings.   So to even claim that high fidelity aims to reproduce the sound of a live performance, you might as well ask for the moon.

And I can anticipate your response to say that since there is no live reference to a recording, then every listener is free to shape the sound from that record any way he or she chooses.  Ofcourse you can.  I have no problem with that.  Like I said, I have gone to great lengths to expound on the definition and objectives of high fidelity.  I am not telling you or anyone how you should listen to you records.  Feel free to manipulate the signals from a record if you find them less than pleasant or life-like based on what you think is more life-like. What I know is that tone shaping devices are a great disservice to the high fidelity concept.  And apart from that, all I am saying is this.  You start and end with two things:  A recording from established labels you are confident consistently deliver great sounds as faithfully as they can from any performance.    And the most neutral, transparent and accurate home playback system you can get that is capable of revealing such a record in all its majesty.  And you will know what great sounds can be had with the state of recording and playback technology we have at the moment. Given the state of technology we have, a well-made recording is the closest anyone can have to a live performance.   And once at home,  a high fidelity playback system that can do justice to such a recording can better do its job of indulging me as a listener.  There's greater likelihood I can have goose bumps and a "you are there" feeling with such a system than in one using tone shapers.  But that's just me ofcourse.

[Signal2Noise]

In my humble opinion, wala pong kinalaman ang frequency range sa pagiging analytical ng speakers 

Mas maganda siguro kung i define nyo muna ang ibig sabihin ng Analytical

Hijo,

I'm just replying to the author of the thread...Ngayon kung gusto mong malaman ang actual performance with respect to frequency range, I suggest gumamit ka nang graphical sweep tests or tingnan mo sa spectrum analyzer kung papaano nag-be-behaved ang sound signal na dumadaloy at lumalabas from your source going to cables-to DSP, MOS FET of your amp going out again to your speaker cables then processed/filtered sa crossover at lalabas sa speaker drivers mo.  Dito mo makikita ang actual responses ng sound sa loudspeakers.  Nag-site lang ako ng media para mas detailed at well-defined ang magiging output, kasama na iyong mga audiophile-quality cds (SACD, DVD-Audio or vinyls).  Actually in-correct iyong term na analytical pagdating sa speakers, pero ayokong lumihis sa topic.  Ngayon kung gusto mong malaman ang ibig kong sabihin, pakinggan mong maigi ang kayang marinig na sound ng tenga mo from highs-to lows.  If you can audibly distinguished the highs (ie 18-20Khz kase baka sumakit na ang tenga mo @ 30Khz) against sa lows (45-25Hz), then you're in the best position para mo masabi na OK ang speakers na ginagamit mo.

Hindi kailangan maging hyperdetailed ang speakers...Ang kailangan ay balanced, clear at well-defined ang lahat ng frequencies from highs to mids to lows at less ang signal loss plus ang distortion.  Dapat ang sounds coming from different notes in a different octaves by different musical instruments ay independent, hindi muddy at labu-labo especially sa higher dBs.

OK...sige at kumusta sa iyo.

[bruno]

Edison Records logo from 1910 sleeve.

[Abad Santos 7]

Gentlemen,

I think we better hold our horses.....

Cheers.....

[hattori_hanzo]

If you can audibly distinguished the highs (ie 18-20Khz kase baka sumakit na ang tenga mo @ 30Khz) against sa lows (45-25Hz), then you're in the best position para mo masabi na OK ang speakers na ginagamit mo.

Bro, dont be offended? but a human audible hearing is only 20hz-20khz, so 30khz? hindi mo na maririnig yun at hindi sasakit ang tenga mo coz, eg. sa mga warehouse's or storage house kung meron kayong napapansin na parang tweeters, those are pest repellant's, they use sound that produce ultrahigh frequency to drive away pest and insects, my question is do you hear them? hindi diba? coz their producing 22khz higher, only such creatures hear them and this drive them crazy. like yung sa "buster cat" if your familiar with this product, these drive away rats.

anyways, yung well below 20hz naman, you can no longger hear that frequency, but you can feel them, subwoofers often go way below 20hz thats the time yung mga things nyo sa bahay is already moving, woofer's can only produce frequency upto 20hz thats the lowest. I've even seen the US military sa showcase of firepower nila sa Discovery channel using ultra low frequency para magiba ang structure's ng enemy nila, ganun ka powerful ang sound in the right tune and in the right hand.

see medyo malayo na sa topic pero kung titignan nyo ang side na ito, you'll be respecting frequency response coz often na mimis-use sa pagbibigay ng kung ano ano info about frequencies.

So before posting naman, make sure ni research nyo ang ilalabas nyo info at kayang nyong ma justify if ever tanungin kayo ng ka hobbyist natin sa forum.

dont be offended guys ha?

by the ways the info i just mentioned are actual information I gathered not only from my field of studies but also on some well documented research and archives.     

[hattori_hanzo]

Hijo,

I'm just replying to the author of the thread...Ngayon kung gusto mong malaman ang actual performance with respect to frequency range, I suggest gumamit ka nang graphical sweep tests or tingnan mo sa spectrum analyzer kung papaano nag-be-behaved ang sound signal na dumadaloy at lumalabas from your source going to cables-to DSP, MOS FET of your amp going out again to your speaker cables then processed/filtered sa crossover at lalabas sa speaker drivers mo.  Dito mo makikita ang actual responses ng sound sa loudspeakers.  Nag-site lang ako ng media para mas detailed at well-defined ang magiging output, kasama na iyong mga audiophile-quality cds (SACD, DVD-Audio or vinyls).  Actually in-correct iyong term na analytical pagdating sa speakers, pero ayokong lumihis sa topic.  Ngayon kung gusto mong malaman ang ibig kong sabihin, pakinggan mong maigi ang kayang marinig na sound ng tenga mo from highs-to lows.  If you can audibly distinguished the highs (ie 18-20Khz kase baka sumakit na ang tenga mo @ 30Khz) against sa lows (45-25Hz), then you're in the best position para mo masabi na OK ang speakers na ginagamit mo.

FYI

the MOS FET your talking about Metal-Oxide-Semiconductor (MOS) Field Effect Transistor (FET)

Discrete power MOSFETs employ semiconductor processing techniques that are similar to those of today's VLSI circuits, although the device geometry, voltage and current levels are significantly different from the design used in VLSI devices. The metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor (MOSFET) is based on the original field-effect transistor introduced in the 70s. The invention of the power MOSFET was partly driven by the limitations of bipolar power junction transistors (BJTs) which, until recently, was the device of choice in power electronics applications.

see not all amp is using this kind of transistor.

better research on this first before using the word MOS FET baka kasi ma mis interpret mo here is the link http://www.irf.com/technical-info/appnotes/mosfet.pdf

[Kevlar]

So to even claim that high fidelity aims to reproduce the sound of a live performance,
you might as well ask for the moon.

Hahaha! I am amused! 
I kinda like your 'moon' analogy but I'd like to point out to you that
it was never mentioned in the definition that 'high fidelity music
reproduction' aims to reproduce the sound of a live performance'...

Here's the definition again of 'high fidelity music reproduction'
in case you misunderstood it the first time around.... 

High fidelity music reproduction is 'music reproduction that brings
you as close as possible to experiencing the sound of the
live performance'
Do you Agree or Disagree? 
You still haven't answered this question.

Given that you agree to this definition, you will note that:
1.  It was never mentioned that high fidelity music reproduction
aims to 'duplicate' or 'reproduce' the live performance.
It only stated that it aims to bring you 'as close as possible' to the
live performance. 

So how 'close' is 'as close as possible'? 
There are no specific standards really!   This leaves much flexibility
in choosing the equipment, recording methods, and playback methods.
What matters in 'high fidelity music reproduction' is the end result.
Since it is impossible to duplicate the sound of the live performance,
then a 'high fidelity music reproduction' system should at least reproduce
musical instruments and human voices realistically - like the real thing!
Try reading the definition again of 'high fidelity music reproduction':
It does not aim to 'reproduce the live performance'; it only aims to get
as close to it as possible.  

2. Given the definition of 'high fidelity music reproduction' above, which
focuses on the 'end result' and not on the 'methods' or 'steps' to get
there, do you now agree that it is completely possible that
'customized playback' may in fact, bring you closer to
'higher fidelity music reproduction' than an 'accurate playback'
which may 'highlight' the deficiencies of the recording?

If you can focus your replies to these two specific questions
then I would be interested to listen to what you have to say.
If you keep on focusing on 'playback fidelity' which is a completely
different topic altogether, then I'm outta here. 

- Kevlar

[av_phile1]

High fidelity music reproduction is 'music reproduction that brings
you as close as possible to experiencing the sound of the
live performance'
Do you Agree or Disagree? 
You still haven't answered this question.

Your definition sounds like an advertisement from Yamaha's "natiural sound" or some other Hi fi brands out there.  This is often the banner ad ascribing qualties to their sound as "bringing closer to sound realism as never before"  I have nothing against adopting such promise to defining High Fidelity, even adding "in music reproduction" to the term, which is totally unnecessary.  But those words don't define High Fidelity.  They define a promise to the consumer.  High Fidelity doesn't promise anything. It has no pretense to being an ad.  It simply defines a condition and an objective.  Now, whether the listener actually feels he/she is closer to "live performance," that's his personal subjective perception. And different people have different subjective perceptions.  As I said, again, there's nothing subjective or even remotely personal about the defintion of high fidelity.  Being "as close as possible to a live performance"  is a subjective personal assessment of a performance of a sound system.  DIfferent people would have different thresholds on when such a condition is achieved. 

But i have no quarrel with your words.  Despite the fact that you're defining an objective term using a very subjecitve promise.  Semantically, "being as close as possible to a live performance" can be considered a subjective equivalent to "being as close as possible to a recording," which is really just another way of saying being as faithful to a recording as possible.  Afterall, a recording is the closest you can ever get to a live performance at home.  But i'd stick to the words "faithful to the recording."

So how 'close' is 'as close as possible'? 
There are no specific standards really!   This leaves much flexibility
in choosing the equipment, recording methods, and playback methods.
What matters in 'high fidelity music reproduction' is the end result.
Since it is impossible to duplicate the sound of the live performance,
then a 'high fidelity music reproduction' system should at least reproduce
musical instruments and human voices realistically - like the real thing!
Try reading the definition again of 'high fidelity music reproduction':
It does not aim to 'reproduce the live performance'; it only aims to get
as close to it as possible.  

Ofcourse, there are no standards to "being as close as possible to a live performance."  How can you put a standard to a personal subjective perception?

Again, like I said in my previous post, a recording can be miles apart from the actual performance from where the record was made.  And recordings have no LIVE REFERENCE.  See my previous post.  The record stand on its own merits as there is no right or wrong sounds in recordings.  The perception of right or wrong sounds is again a personal assessment.  The perception of how close it is to a live performance is a matter of personal taste based on what he thinks and feels sounds right.  High Fidelity does not pressume to know nor impose what is the right sound for every person.  It only wants to be faithful to the recording.  Simple.

2. Given the definition of 'high fidelity music reproduction' above, which
focuses on the 'end result' and not on the 'methods' or 'steps' to get
there, do you now agree that it is completely possible that
'customized playback' may in fact, bring you closer to
'higher fidelity music reproduction' than an 'accurate playback'
which may 'highlight' the deficiencies of the recording?

"Customized playback?"  If you mean using tone controls and equalizers,  I don't see how mutilating the signals from a  record using phase shifting and distorting tone shapers can bring you any closer to a "live perofrmance."  I repeat for the Nth time.  With the present state of technology, a well made recording is the closest you can ever get to a live performance captured on the medium of your choice.    That's all you have when playing your sound system.  And reproducing such a record as faithfully as possible allows you to perceptually narrow the proximity between what you hear and the sounds of a live performance, limited only by the  degrees of accuracy, transparency and neutrality that different sound systems have.  Stated differently, because your are attempting to reproduce the recording with as much fidelity as possible, and because the recording is the closest you can ever have to a live performance at home,  without attempting to alter or modify the signals, there's a greater chance you can have a perception of being closer to the live sounds that is right for you.

If you can focus your replies to these two specific questions
then I would be interested to listen to what you have to say.
If you keep on focusing on 'playback fidelity' which is a completely
different topic altogether, then I'm outta here. 

- Kevlar

Now that's really amusing.  How can "playback fidelity" be a "completely different topic?  Nasaan ka ba, nasa recording studio ka ba?  That's the only case when playback fidelity becomes almost irrelevant,  as you'd be concerned more with recording fidelity.  When you're at home, the one thing that is very relevant when using your sound system is playback.  Unless you do home recordings, everytime you plunk in a CD or LP or tape, it's all about playback.  For consumers, High Fidelity is really just about Home Playback Fidelity.    You have nothing to say about the recording fidelity.  You either buy a record or you don't.  Everything else is playback. Capiche?? 

[Kevlar]

(1)...those words don't define High Fidelity.  They define a promise to the consumer.  High Fidelity doesn't promise anything. It has no pretense to being an ad.  It simply defines a condition and an objective. 

(2)...Semantically, "being as close as possible to a live performance" can be considered a subjective equivalent to "being as close as possible to a recording...

(3)High Fidelity does not pressume to know nor impose what is the right sound for every person.  It only wants to be faithful to the recording.  Simple.

(4) a well made recording is the closest you can ever get to a live performance captured on the medium of your choice.   

My comments: 

(1) Where's 'promise' in the definition?  Did it say high fidelity music reproduction 'promises to bring you as close
as possible to experiencing the sound of the live performance'?   The definition says 'music reproduction that brings
you as close as possible to experiencing the sound of the live performance'.  It implies an end result,
not a promise.  The end result is not perfect reproduction of the sound of the live performance...
It is simply 'music reproduction' that is as close as possible to it.

Hmmm... You have a distorted way of interpreting definitions...

(2) "being as close as possible to a live performance" can be considered a subjective equivalent to "being as close as possible to a recording... 
What?!!! I am just amazed!    How can 'being as close as possible to a live performance'
be a subjective equivalent to 'being as close as possible to a recording'? Do you define 'live performance' = 'recording'?
What the... 

I think you are seriously confusing again 'high fidelity music reproduction' with 'high fidelity playback'.
The first one 'aims to bring you as close as possible to the sound of the live performance; it is
ultimately concerned with the end result;  the second one (high fidelity playback)
'aims to bring you as close as possible to what was actually recorded; no compensations/customizations
whatsoever for recording deficiencies/anomalies that would have otherwise improved the sound and
brought the sound closer to the sound of the live performance...  Don't confuse the two, ok? They are
entirely different and they have entirely different goals.

(3)  High Fidelity does not presume to know nor impose what is the right sound for every person. 
It only wants to be faithful to the recording.  Simple.

I agree 100% with the first part, the concept of the 'right sound' is purely personal. That is why there was never
a 'high fidelity consortium' that created 'standards' for what is 'high fidelity music reproduction' and what is not
because they themselves would never agree on what is 'high fidelity sound' and what is not.  It is purely personal.

'It only wants to be faithful to the recording'? 
How many times do I have to repeat, 'high fidelity playback' is not
the same as 'high fidelity music  reproduction'... You are confusing again the two entirely different terms...
Please refer to 'paragraph 2' of my second comment (comment #2)...   

(4) a well made recording is the closest you can ever get to a live performance captured on the medium of your choice
I agree 100%!!! But how many recordings are 'well made" so that there is no need to 'customize' their
playback as they already sound 'close to the live performance'? 25%? What about the remaining
75% pop/rock records, should you just stop buying them even if they are the best musical compositions
produced on earth?

The problem with your concept of 'high fidelity music reproduction' is that you focus so much on the
'standard' steps or the 'methods' to get their.  You have no control about the recording fidelity
which is already a handicap, and you make it worse by refusing to control 'playback' to compensate
for 'recording deficiencies'.

You emphasize so much on the 'standard steps' or 'methodology' to achieve high fidelity music reproduction
(which are only applicable for very few good recordings [about 25%]),  that you overlook the 'end result'
which is what matters most in this hobby and which is actually the essense of
'high fidelity music reproduction' --- to bring you as close as possible to the sound of the
live performance. 

No, 'high fidelity music reproduction' is not aimed to 'duplicate' or 'reproduce' the live performance. 
It is simply to bring you closer to it, and bringing you closer to it means that voices, musical instruments
and acoustic spaces in the recordings, should at least sound close to the real thing. 
If an accurate playback of the recording does not achieve this, then by all means you should
not further handicap yourself by not doing anything.  You are already 'handicapped' by the bad
recording, why should you further 'handicap' yourself when you have control over the playback?

Don't get me wrong.  I'd like to emphasize that like you, I aim for the flattest, most neutral
and most transparent speakers/audio equipment around.  I aim for 'playback fidelity'
as much as possible. But the real world isn't like that.  That methodology is only applicable
for at most 25% of the recordings (mostly jazz/classical/audiophile grade).  I happen to like
pop/rock records also which comprise at least 50% of the best composed music in the world.

Ultimately, it is not the 'methodology' or the 'steps' that matter most.  I don't say they don't
matter, because they do, but they should not make you forget that it is the 'end result' that
we are after, not  the 'steps' or 'methodology'.  And the 'end result' is 'getting the listener
as close as possible to the sound of the live performance, not the sound of the recording'. 

- Kevlar
 

[jerix]

My comments: 


Hmmm... You have a distorted way of interpreting definitions...


- Kevlar
 

I agree that most of us learn so much from discussions here but maybe it is better reading the good points of concerned members if we try using more friendly words. Most of the time good arguments loses its value because of the words used to convey.. 

This is just a friendly reminder .. 

[kimpao]

Much better to go thru this thread every morning than to read the newspaper. 

[Abad Santos 7]

Thats what Im doing mas mura instead of buying newspaper na common lang
ang balita....

Hayyyyy, still waiting for the speakers that could be decided on this trend..but on the budget level lang po.

Cheers.

[kimpao]

Thats what Im doing mas mura instead of buying newspaper na common lang
ang balita....

Hayyyyy, still waiting for the speakers that could be decided on this trend..but on the budget level lang po.

Cheers.

Nag hahanap ka ba sir? Ang maipapayo ko lang sir is pakinggan mo yung tunog na lumalabas dun sa speaker na ino-audition mo at wag yung "BIBIG" nun nasa tabi mo. 

[iceman90a]

kimpao alin - yung bumubulong ng: maganda yan, kunin mo na yan!!

[kimpao]

kimpao alin - yung bumubulong ng: maganda yan, kunin mo na yan!!

Sakto!!!!!......... 

[jerix]

Nag hahanap ka ba sir? Ang maipapayo ko lang sir is pakinggan mo yung tunog na lumalabas dun sa speaker na ino-audition mo at wag yung "BIBIG" nun nasa tabi mo. 

hehehe! ang lakas nga ng impluwensiya ng mga tao sa paligid-- even greater than the speaker you are trying to test. i call this the "MIRON" Factor