Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > rec.audio.high-end > #9765 > unrolled thread

Attenuate highest highs?

Back to article view | Back to rec.audio.high-end

Contents

  Attenuate highest highs? ~misfit~ <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> - 2020-02-13 01:19 +1300
    Re: Attenuate highest highs? Unsteadyken <unsteadyken@gmail.com> - 2020-02-13 16:59 +0000
      Re: Attenuate highest highs? ~misfit~ <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> - 2020-02-14 12:18 +1300
    Re: Attenuate highest highs? Peter Wieck <peterwieck33@gmail.com> - 2020-02-14 04:11 -0800
      Re: Attenuate highest highs? ~misfit~ <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> - 2020-02-18 18:05 +1300
        Re: Attenuate highest highs? Peter Wieck <peterwieck33@gmail.com> - 2020-02-18 06:45 -0800
          Re: Attenuate highest highs? ~misfit~ <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> - 2020-02-19 14:21 +1300
    Re: Attenuate highest highs? Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> - 2020-02-15 04:18 +1100
      Re: Attenuate highest highs? Peter Wieck <peterwieck33@gmail.com> - 2020-02-14 10:32 -0800
        Re: Attenuate highest highs? Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> - 2020-02-17 04:58 +1100
          Re: Attenuate highest highs? dpierce.cartchunk.org@gmail.com - 2020-02-17 14:27 -0800
            Re: Attenuate highest highs? Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> - 2020-02-19 06:35 +1100
        Re: Attenuate highest highs? ~misfit~ <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> - 2020-02-18 17:28 +1300
          Re: Attenuate highest highs? Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> - 2020-02-19 06:41 +1100
            Re: Attenuate highest highs? Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> - 2020-02-19 09:14 +1100
              Re: Attenuate highest highs? ~misfit~ <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> - 2020-02-19 15:02 +1300
                Re: Attenuate highest highs? Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> - 2020-02-20 08:44 +1100
                  Re: Attenuate highest highs? ~misfit~ <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> - 2020-02-20 13:05 +1300
                    Re: Attenuate highest highs? Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> - 2020-02-21 05:01 +1100
                      Re: Attenuate highest highs? Peter Wieck <peterwieck33@gmail.com> - 2020-02-21 04:37 -0800
                        Re: Attenuate highest highs? Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> - 2020-02-22 06:57 +1100
                          Re: Attenuate highest highs? Peter Wieck <peterwieck33@gmail.com> - 2020-02-21 12:48 -0800
                            Re: Attenuate highest highs? Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> - 2020-02-23 05:37 +1100
            Re: Attenuate highest highs? ~misfit~ <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> - 2020-02-19 14:28 +1300
              Re: Attenuate highest highs? Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> - 2020-02-20 08:57 +1100
                Re: Attenuate highest highs? ~misfit~ <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> - 2020-02-20 13:46 +1300
                  Re: Attenuate highest highs? Peter Wieck <peterwieck33@gmail.com> - 2020-02-20 05:18 -0800
                    Re: Attenuate highest highs? Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> - 2020-02-24 09:46 +1100
      Re: Attenuate highest highs? ~misfit~ <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> - 2020-02-18 16:18 +1300
    Re: Attenuate highest highs? dpierce.cartchunk.org@gmail.com - 2020-02-14 13:05 -0800
      Re: Attenuate highest highs? ~misfit~ <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> - 2020-02-18 17:48 +1300
    Re: Attenuate highest highs? "Mat Nieuwenhoven" <mnieuw@zap.a2000.nl> - 2020-02-17 08:50 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#9765 — Attenuate highest highs?

I have a pair of 2-way speakers that I like very much - except they go too
high and are too bright. They're Sony SSK-30s and otherwise make great
near-field monitors in my office. They image and reproduce voice
exceptionally
well.

I'll be 60 next year and can't hear a huge amount above around 16 - 17 kHz.
However they distract me too much with sounds that I can barely hear (no
other
speakers that I've heard lately do this). Because of this they're tiring to
listen too. Sony sold them as being ideal for SACD and claim they go up to
70
kHz (and call them "Extended Definition" speakers).

So what can I add to the cross-over to attenuate the highest highs but leave
the main body of the upper frequencies at the same level? A tiny inductor?
Surely a resistor would drop all tweeter frequencies and mess with the
balance?

I have other speakers I could use but these just sound so damn good
otherwise.
Re-discovering music from my past through these is amazing, music I've been
listening to for decades has new stuff in it... (A cliche but very true in
this case.)

I tried using a pair of Goodmans Mezzo IIs (that I've always liked) for a
few
days but they are lacking in the very upper frequencies (likely due to the
32mm SEAS tweeter). I want the highs to be there but not in a piercing way.

Input appreciated.
--
Shaun.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#9766

In article <hal5lsFoga8U1@mid.individual.net>,
 
~misfit~ says...

> So what can I add to the cross-over to attenuate the highest highs but leave
> the main body of the upper frequencies at the same level?
> 
Try the acoustic disrupter method:-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tissue_paper#Acoustic_disrupter


-- 
Ken

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9772

On 14/02/2020 5:59 am, Unsteadyken wrote:
> In article <hal5lsFoga8U1@mid.individual.net>,
>   
> ~misfit~ says...
> 
>> So what can I add to the cross-over to attenuate the highest highs but leave
>> the main body of the upper frequencies at the same level?
>>
> Try the acoustic disrupter method:-)
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tissue_paper#Acoustic_disrupter

I considered physical barriers (I no longer leave the grilles off them and have considered 
'thickening' the upper part). That section of Wkipedia you linked ends with ... "suggesting that 
more controllable and less random electronic filtering would be preferable" which is where my 
thought processes ended up.

I have a few examples of acoustic lenses on my parts shelf (mainly from old Sansui speakers) but 
after researching and finding they were designed to disperse high frequency sound horizontally 
rather than attenuate it decided against trying to use a lens.

Cheers,
-- 
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification 
in the DSM"
David Melville

This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9767

What are you using for a pre-amp/power amp and/or integrated amp? Does it have tone controls? A small cut  to the treble might solve this neatly. But: 

I run an AR Athena sub-sat system in my office - via a Dynaco PAS-3x & ST-35. Given that even though I am "the boss", I am in an office environment so I keep the volume low. Were I to run the system "flat", I would have exactly the problem you describe. The 3x has a 'loudness' switch that boosts the bass relative to the treble, just a bit. That allows a more balanced perceived sound at the low levels I use. That capability went out of style more-or-less in the 1980s. The other option would be an outboard equalizer - overkill certainly, but an option. 

The 'disrupter' method, while cute, may require you to try many sorts of materials before you are satisfied and/or may require different materials based on the signal at hand. It does *work* however.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9776

On 15/02/2020 1:11 am, Peter Wieck wrote:
> What are you using for a pre-amp/power amp and/or integrated amp? Does it have tone controls? A small cut  to the treble might solve this neatly. But:

Sorry Peter I didn't see your post until now and have replied to all of the others in this thread 
so there might be relevant info there. I'm using a very basic pre-amp with no tone controls and a 
certain Dynaco ST120 power amp. There is a pass-through crossover between the two taking everything 
below 70Hz to a 10" subwoofer as described in another post.

> I run an AR Athena sub-sat system in my office - via a Dynaco PAS-3x & ST-35. Given that even though I am "the boss", I am in an office environment so I keep the volume low.

As mentioned elsewhere my 'office' is a 'soft' alcove (there's carpet, an armchair, curtains etc.) 
off my main open-plan dining / kitchen area where I have my computer and desk. As I live alone and 
usually listen to material with a wide dynamic range I tend to listen at levels higher than most 
people would in a true office environment.

I shouldn't have called it an office really, it's not an accurate description of the space.

> Were I to run the system "flat", I would have exactly the problem you describe. The 3x has a 'loudness' switch that boosts the bass relative to the treble, just a bit. That allows a more balanced perceived sound at the low levels I use. That capability went out of style more-or-less in the 1980s. The other option would be an outboard equalizer - overkill certainly, but an option.

I've been watching auctions for good quality EQs but unfortunately anything other than used 
gimmicky plastic 90s things (that people seem to ask new prices for) are well beyond my price range.

> The 'disrupter' method, while cute, may require you to try many sorts of materials before you are satisfied and/or may require different materials based on the signal at hand. It does *work* however.

I did a bit of reading on the subject (mainly 
<http://www.bobhodas.com/examining-the-yamaha-ns-10m.php> ) and dismissed it - for now at least.

Cheers,
-- 
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification 
in the DSM"
David Melville

This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9777

Please note the interpolations.


> so there might be relevant info there. I'm using a very basic pre-amp with no tone controls and a certain Dynaco ST120 power amp. There is a pass-through crossover between the two taking everything below 70Hz to a 10" subwoofer as described in another post.

I see that. And you mentioned that the Sub amp has a level-control. Have you tried boosting that just a bit? 

> 
> > Were I to run the system "flat", I would have exactly the problem you describe. The 3x has a 'loudness' switch that boosts the bass relative to the treble, just a bit. That allows a more balanced perceived sound at the low levels I use. That capability went out of style more-or-less in the 1980s. The other option would be an outboard equalizer - overkill certainly, but an option.
> 
> I've been watching auctions for good quality EQs but unfortunately anything other than used 
> gimmicky plastic 90s things (that people seem to ask new prices for) are well beyond my price range.

The SE-10 I mentioned came my way for $0, as it was perceived as totally dead from the BIN (Buy-it-Now) pile at Kutztown. You will notice that the fuse is inside... and missing in the example I found. As I have my original example purchased as a kit, I do not need two. So, to you it would be cost-of-shipping, not inconsiderable. 

> 
> > The 'disrupter' method, while cute, may require you to try many sorts of materials before you are satisfied and/or may require different materials based on the signal at hand. It does *work* however.

Getting back to your sub-amp. I am assuming that it is strapped for a single output at 300 watts into 4 ohms. For the record, driving 2N3773s in that configuration to 300 watts is wildly optimistic. Much as one *can* operate a Ford Focus engine at 6,000 RPM - just not for very long. All that aside, I also understand that particular amp sometimes has a problem amplifying mains current hum? When I looked it up, I saw no associated power-supply (or, to be fair, no transformer) or diode/capacitor block. Just a "suggested power supply"  http://home.alphalink.com.au/~cambie/PM300/PM300.htm   I would also 'fix' the bias (replace the pots) for stability, once you are sure of the proper value(s). A number of US manufacturers used pots back in the day - and as the pots went open, all that magic smoke escaped. And given that device was designed c. 1980, that may be a consideration. 

Cutting to the chase, try playing around with the bass output levels, and keep in mind that pretty much anything below 500 HZ is non-directional in any case - such that distance between the treble source and bass source (and you) are the governing factors, not direction. Leading to having the bass source, ideally, the same physical distance from your ears as the treble source. Do also verify phasing - speakers out-of-phase give all sorts of unhappy effects. 

Some "stuff" on that:  https://us.kef.com/blog/how-to-get-the-most-out-of-your-subwoofer-phase-and-positioning   

Some further experimentation with placement may be in order. 

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9781

On 19/02/2020 3:45 am, Peter Wieck wrote:
> Please note the interpolations.
> 
> 
>> so there might be relevant info there. I'm using a very basic pre-amp with no tone controls and a certain Dynaco ST120 power amp. There is a pass-through crossover between the two taking everything below 70Hz to a 10" subwoofer as described in another post.
> 
> I see that. And you mentioned that the Sub amp has a level-control. Have you tried boosting that just a bit?

Yes. I've tried boosting and dropping it. In fact I adjust it depending on source material. With 
older source material it sounds better with a slight boost, with more recently recorded stuff I 
drop the bass level a bit as it can become overpowering.

>>> Were I to run the system "flat", I would have exactly the problem you describe. The 3x has a 'loudness' switch that boosts the bass relative to the treble, just a bit. That allows a more balanced perceived sound at the low levels I use. That capability went out of style more-or-less in the 1980s. The other option would be an outboard equalizer - overkill certainly, but an option.
>>
>> I've been watching auctions for good quality EQs but unfortunately anything other than used
>> gimmicky plastic 90s things (that people seem to ask new prices for) are well beyond my price range.
> 
> The SE-10 I mentioned came my way for $0, as it was perceived as totally dead from the BIN (Buy-it-Now) pile at Kutztown. You will notice that the fuse is inside... and missing in the example I found. As I have my original example purchased as a kit, I do not need two. So, to you it would be cost-of-shipping, not inconsiderable.

Thanks for the kind offer.

>>> The 'disrupter' method, while cute, may require you to try many sorts of materials before you are satisfied and/or may require different materials based on the signal at hand. It does *work* however.
> 
> Getting back to your sub-amp. I am assuming that it is strapped for a single output at 300 watts into 4 ohms.

320 watts into 4 ohms and 200 watts into 8.

> For the record, driving 2N3773s in that configuration to 300 watts is wildly optimistic. Much as one *can* operate a Ford Focus engine at 6,000 RPM - just not for very long.

It uses three pairs of 2SK1058 / 2SJ162 TO-3P power MOSFETs.

> All that aside, I also understand that particular amp sometimes has a problem amplifying mains current hum? When I looked it up, I saw no associated power-supply (or, to be fair, no transformer) or diode/capacitor block. Just a "suggested power supply"  http://home.alphalink.com.au/~cambie/PM300/PM300.htm   I would also 'fix' the bias (replace the pots) for stability, once you are sure of the proper value(s). A number of US manufacturers used pots back in the day - and as the pots went open, all that magic smoke escaped. And given that device was designed c. 1980, that may be a consideration.

That's a different amplifier. Unfortunately it seems they recycled the name. The unit I'm using was 
described in Electronics Australia 1995-04 and 1995-05 issues and was sold as a kitset through 
Jaycar Electronis and Dick Smith Electronics in Australia and New Zealand.

The power supply uses a 300 VA toroidial transformer and has 20,000uF of capacitance on each 
channel. The active crossover was previously released as a stand-alone kit (1994-09) but integrated 
into the same case as the power amp in this version.

I have pdfs of the magazines but can't find them hosted on-line anywhere.

> Cutting to the chase, try playing around with the bass output levels, and keep in mind that pretty much anything below 500 HZ is non-directional in any case - such that distance between the treble source and bass source (and you) are the governing factors, not direction. Leading to having the bass source, ideally, the same physical distance from your ears as the treble source. Do also verify phasing - speakers out-of-phase give all sorts of unhappy effects.

Thanks. The sub is directly below the left channel (bookshelf) speaker, facing the same way. I've 
tried swapping the phase and it sounds best in-phase. The output from the subwoofer is more than 
enough (and I like good clean bass) so that the level control is rarely above ~85% - and that high 
only with material recorded in the 70s and early 80s (such as Rickie Lee Jones' eponymous album on CD).

I rarely have the issue of half-heard fatiguing highs on older material. It's mainly on stuff 
recorded after 2000 or so.

> Some "stuff" on that:  https://us.kef.com/blog/how-to-get-the-most-out-of-your-subwoofer-phase-and-positioning
> 
> Some further experimentation with placement may be in order.

I'm a bit limited within the space in which I use them but have experimented with toe-in and 
subwoofer placement and the current set up seems optimal - except for that annoying half-heard high 
frequency stuff. Maybe it's just that my age, the condition of my hearing and these otherwise 
excellent speakers aren't suited together?

That would be a shame as they are by far the most revealing and best imaging speakers that I own.

Cheers,
-- 
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification 
in the DSM"
David Melville

This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9768

On 12/02/2020 11:19 pm, ~misfit~ wrote:
> I have a pair of 2-way speakers that I like very much - except they go too
> high and are too bright. They're Sony SSK-30s and otherwise make great
> near-field monitors in my office. They image and reproduce voice
> exceptionally
> well.
> 
> I'll be 60 next year and can't hear a huge amount above around 16 - 17 kHz.
> However they distract me too much with sounds that I can barely hear (no
> other
> speakers that I've heard lately do this). Because of this they're tiring to
> listen too. Sony sold them as being ideal for SACD and claim they go up to
> 70
> kHz (and call them "Extended Definition" speakers).
> 
> So what can I add to the cross-over to attenuate the highest highs but leave
> the main body of the upper frequencies at the same level? A tiny inductor?
> Surely a resistor would drop all tweeter frequencies and mess with the
> balance?
> 
> I have other speakers I could use but these just sound so damn good
> otherwise.
> Re-discovering music from my past through these is amazing, music I've been
> listening to for decades has new stuff in it... (A cliche but very true in
> this case.)
> 
> I tried using a pair of Goodmans Mezzo IIs (that I've always liked) for a
> few
> days but they are lacking in the very upper frequencies (likely due to the
> 32mm SEAS tweeter). I want the highs to be there but not in a piercing way.
> 
> Input appreciated.
> --
> Shaun.
> 

**If your hearing is attenuated at HF, then you don't need to further 
attenuate HF (assuming the speaker has been competently designed). 
You've already stated that you can't hear anything above 16 ~ 17kHz. 
Perhaps you should consider room effects. Have you measured the in-room 
response?

-- 
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9769

I think you are missing the point. If too much energy is being dissipated by the speakers in the high range, then too much energy is being dissipated in the high range. And, the brute fact of the matter is that there is not a whole lot going on above 15 kHz anyway. So if the OP perceives that his speakers are overly bright, we should start there. 

I agree that attenuating the high range is not the answer. But neither is tweaking room acoustics. We need to work with the Human Ear and how we perceive sound at various volumes. 

Which is why balancing the speaker output does seem to be an answer, especially given that one does not normally blast music in an office. At low volumes, in general, not enough energy gets to the bass driver(s) to balance the treble, especially as speaker efficiency drops. These are 88 dB speakers, not horrible, but not great either. 

Eschew needless complexity. If the electronics have a "Loudness" function, start there. If they have tone-controls try *BOOSTING* the bass - again that nasty issue of low-volume weak bass is more at-issue than excess treble (at low volume). Failing both these things, is it possible to relocate the speakers, moving them more towards room corners, or closer to the floor, or similar so as to help 'boost' the bass response. However, this might sacrifice sound-stage. 

Only after the obvious fixes have failed should we push towards more heroic measures.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9771

On 15/02/2020 5:32 am, Peter Wieck wrote:
> I think you are missing the point. If too much energy is being dissipated by the speakers in the high range, then too much energy is being dissipated in the high range.

**Unlikely. Assuming nothing is broken is the system (as suggested by 
Dick), then it is almost certainly a room problem. Room and speaker/room 
interaction *IS*, by a very considerable margin, the dominant factor is 
perceived audible problems in an audio system.


  And, the brute fact of the matter is that there is not a whole lot 
going on above 15 kHz anyway. So if the OP perceives that his speakers 
are overly bright, we should start there.

**Well, again: Assuming there is nothing broken in the speaker (which, 
obviously, should be checked first, to ensure correct functioning), then 
the room is the next item to check.


> 
> I agree that attenuating the high range is not the answer. But neither is tweaking room acoustics. We need to work with the Human Ear and how we perceive sound at various volumes.

**And trust me on this: The room is, by a very considerable margin, the 
dominant factor in audible problems with systems.

> 
> Which is why balancing the speaker output does seem to be an answer, especially given that one does not normally blast music in an office. At low volumes, in general, not enough energy gets to the bass driver(s) to balance the treble, especially as speaker efficiency drops. These are 88 dB speakers, not horrible, but not great either.

**I am making several assumptions in my diagnosis:

1) That the speakers have been professionally and correctly designed and 
constructed. Either of these things may not be true. I don't know. Sony 
is a proper brand, so I assume design and construction has been done to 
decent standards.

2) That the amplifier is not broken.

Therefore, the room is the problem. Room treatments can be challenging 
to apply, but they can be very, VERY cost-effective.

The room will be the problem. Too many hard surfaces is most likely.


> 
> Eschew needless complexity. If the electronics have a "Loudness" function, start there.

**No. Tone controls (and loudness controls) are very much a hit and miss 
treatment. Without proper measurements and controls, tone controls are 
pretty much a waste of time.


  If they have tone-controls try *BOOSTING* the bass - again that nasty 
issue of low-volume weak bass is more at-issue than excess treble (at 
low volume). Failing both these things, is it possible to relocate the 
speakers, moving them more towards room corners, or closer to the floor, 
or similar so as to help 'boost' the bass response. However, this might 
sacrifice sound-stage.

**The speakers should be placed in a location where they have been 
designed for. Any other location will deliver unpredictable results.

> 
> Only after the obvious fixes have failed should we push towards more heroic measures.
> 

**Room treatments are hardly heroic measures. Room treatments are 
FUNDAMENTAL to the proper operation of a sound reproduction system. In 
fact, I would posit that the STARTING point of a sound reproduction 
system is the room. Everything else is secondary. And, when I say 'room 
treatments' I do include speakers and speaker location as part of the 
process. However, since the speakers are already chosen and, presumably, 
located appropriately, then room treatments (damping materials) is the 
next approach to take.

-- 
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9774

On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 1:29:45 PM UTC-5, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 15/02/2020 5:32 am, Peter Wieck wrote:
>> I think you are missing the point. If too much energy is being 
>> dissipated by the speakers in the high range, then too much energy is being >> dissipated in the high range.
> 
> **Unlikely. Assuming nothing is broken is the system (as suggested by 
> Dick), then it is almost certainly a room problem. 

AAT the kind of frequencies the original poster is talking
about, it is almost certinaly NOT a room problem. It would 
be about the LAST thing I would go looking after.

Room and speaker/room 

> interaction *IS*, by a very considerable margin, the dominant factor is 
> perceived audible problems in an audio system.

Not at the kinds of high frequency (>10 kHz) the poster is taking
about, no.

In all the speakers I have measured in rooms, and that number is
not inconsiderable, the higher frequencies, and especially that
region around and above 10 kHz, shows the closest approach to the
anechoice response of the loudspeaker.

Why? For it to be a room problem, you have to have a LOT of paths
(and by "a lot", I mean the preponderance of all possible paths)
whose length is proximal to whiole number multiples of eithe 1/4 
or 1/2 a wavelenngth to within a high degree of precision (maybe
+- a few degrees total phase error), and we're talking wavelength
on the order of an inch or less. Further, all these paths must have
a very low total absorption along the paths.


> And, the brute fact of the matter is that there is not a whole lot 
> going on above 15 kHz anyway. So if the OP perceives that his speakers 
> are overly bright, we should start there.

I would suggest this will be a fruitless pursuit.

Now, if it was just a LITTLE lower in frequency, like a factor
a hundred times lower, you might have a case.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9778

On 18/02/2020 9:27 am, dpierce.cartchunk.org@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 1:29:45 PM UTC-5, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 15/02/2020 5:32 am, Peter Wieck wrote:
>>> I think you are missing the point. If too much energy is being
>>> dissipated by the speakers in the high range, then too much energy is being >> dissipated in the high range.
>>
>> **Unlikely. Assuming nothing is broken is the system (as suggested by
>> Dick), then it is almost certainly a room problem.
> 
> AAT the kind of frequencies the original poster is talking
> about, it is almost certinaly NOT a room problem. It would
> be about the LAST thing I would go looking after.

**I've read the OP's words and there is ZERO reference to specific 
frequencies. The OP could be referring to frequencies around 3kHz for 
all any of us know. I see no measurements, nor anything else that could 
provide a starting point for investigations.


> 
> Room and speaker/room
> 
>> interaction *IS*, by a very considerable margin, the dominant factor is
>> perceived audible problems in an audio system.
> 
> Not at the kinds of high frequency (>10 kHz) the poster is taking
> about, no.

**I don't see how you can infer that >10kHz is the problem. >10kHz is 
NEVER, IME, a problem for anyone other than children.

> 
> In all the speakers I have measured in rooms, and that number is
> not inconsiderable, the higher frequencies, and especially that
> region around and above 10 kHz, shows the closest approach to the
> anechoice response of the loudspeaker.

**Sure, but you are assuming the OP knows that >10kHz is the problem. I 
posit that the likely problem frequencies are lower. MUCH lower.


> 
> Why? For it to be a room problem, you have to have a LOT of paths
> (and by "a lot", I mean the preponderance of all possible paths)
> whose length is proximal to whiole number multiples of eithe 1/4
> or 1/2 a wavelenngth to within a high degree of precision (maybe
> +- a few degrees total phase error), and we're talking wavelength
> on the order of an inch or less. Further, all these paths must have
> a very low total absorption along the paths.
> 
> 
>> And, the brute fact of the matter is that there is not a whole lot
>> going on above 15 kHz anyway. So if the OP perceives that his speakers
>> are overly bright, we should start there.
> 
> I would suggest this will be a fruitless pursuit.
> 
> Now, if it was just a LITTLE lower in frequency, like a factor
> a hundred times lower, you might have a case.

**I will bet you that the problem can be solved using appropriate (and 
inexpensive) room treatments. It always is. Room effects dominate ANY 
system. And, frankly, I don't know why you are arguing this point with 
me. You know I am correct. What neither of us know, is the ACTUAL 
frequencies that are causing discomfort. I betcha it is somewhere around 
3kHz. After we see some measurements, then we will know for sure.



-- 
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9775

On 15/02/2020 7:32 am, Peter Wieck wrote:
> I think you are missing the point. If too much energy is being dissipated by the speakers in the high range, then too much energy is being dissipated in the high range. And, the brute fact of the matter is that there is not a whole lot going on above 15 kHz anyway. So if the OP perceives that his speakers are overly bright, we should start there.

A lot of the material I listen to is 'full range' and does have a reasonable amount of high 
frequency content.

(I was listening to the Lindsey Buckingham Christine McVie album the other day and there were 
'tinkling' noises in one track that I could hear but not clearly. It made me wonder why two 70 y/o 
plus musicians were using sounds that they likely couldn't hear!)

> I agree that attenuating the high range is not the answer. But neither is tweaking room acoustics. We need to work with the Human Ear and how we perceive sound at various volumes.
> 
> Which is why balancing the speaker output does seem to be an answer, especially given that one does not normally blast music in an office. At low volumes, in general, not enough energy gets to the bass driver(s) to balance the treble, especially as speaker efficiency drops. These are 88 dB speakers, not horrible, but not great either.

I do generally listen to music with a wide dynamic range so the volume is set higher than it would 
be if I were listening to compressed pop or rock music. I sometimes listen to music while computer 
gaming and it can be louder than you'd expect in an 'office'.

I use the term 'office' loosely to mean the area of the house where my computer and desk are. It's 
a habit I picked up when I owned a small business and did my stocktaking and accounts etc. from a 
home office.

> Eschew needless complexity. If the electronics have a "Loudness" function, start there. If they have tone-controls try *BOOSTING* the bass - again that nasty issue of low-volume weak bass is more at-issue than excess treble (at low volume). Failing both these things, is it possible to relocate the speakers, moving them more towards room corners, or closer to the floor, or similar so as to help 'boost' the bass response. However, this might sacrifice sound-stage.

The bass is good. I'm using a small kitset pre-amp with no tone controls which goes through a 
crossover in a second-hand kitset subwoofer amplifier. (Playmaster 300W Subwoofer Amplifier.) The 
crossover takes away all of signal below a certain point, sums it and feeds it to the 300W MOSFET 
amp. It has three selectable crossover points and a level control.

I've got it set to the lowest of the crossover points (which are 70, 90 and 120Hz) as I want to 
preserve as much directional information from low frequencies as possible. The Sony SS-K30EDs seem 
to handle frequencies down to 70Hz just fine with minimal drop-off.

The subwoofer is a very inefficient thing that I built braced 25mm MDF a couple of decades ago. 
It's a 10" driver in a ~40l internally-braced sealed box and as such is very 'musical' when 
compared to ported subwoofers that I've heard. It's response tails off below about 26Hz but I'm 
fine with that.

> Only after the obvious fixes have failed should we push towards more heroic measures.

Cheers,
-- 
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification 
in the DSM"
David Melville

This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9779

On 18/02/2020 3:28 pm, ~misfit~ wrote:
> On 15/02/2020 7:32 am, Peter Wieck wrote:
>> I think you are missing the point. If too much energy is being 
>> dissipated by the speakers in the high range, then too much energy is 
>> being dissipated in the high range. And, the brute fact of the matter 
>> is that there is not a whole lot going on above 15 kHz anyway. So if 
>> the OP perceives that his speakers are overly bright, we should start 
>> there.
> 
> A lot of the material I listen to is 'full range' and does have a 
> reasonable amount of high frequency content.
> 
> (I was listening to the Lindsey Buckingham Christine McVie album the 
> other day and there were 'tinkling' noises in one track that I could 
> hear but not clearly. It made me wonder why two 70 y/o plus musicians 
> were using sounds that they likely couldn't hear!)

**Those "tinkling noises" you hear are somewhere around 3kHz. You need 
to employ some room treatments to deal with the problem.

> 
>> I agree that attenuating the high range is not the answer. But neither 
>> is tweaking room acoustics. We need to work with the Human Ear and how 
>> we perceive sound at various volumes.
>>
>> Which is why balancing the speaker output does seem to be an answer, 
>> especially given that one does not normally blast music in an office. 
>> At low volumes, in general, not enough energy gets to the bass 
>> driver(s) to balance the treble, especially as speaker efficiency 
>> drops. These are 88 dB speakers, not horrible, but not great either.
> 
> I do generally listen to music with a wide dynamic range so the volume 
> is set higher than it would be if I were listening to compressed pop or 
> rock music. I sometimes listen to music while computer gaming and it can 
> be louder than you'd expect in an 'office'.

**Is the amplifier being allowed to enter Voltage limiting (aka: 
Clipping)? If so, then all bets are off. You may need an amplifier with 
more output Voltage capability.

> 
> I use the term 'office' loosely to mean the area of the house where my 
> computer and desk are. It's a habit I picked up when I owned a small 
> business and did my stocktaking and accounts etc. from a home office.
> 
>> Eschew needless complexity. If the electronics have a "Loudness" 
>> function, start there. If they have tone-controls try *BOOSTING* the 
>> bass - again that nasty issue of low-volume weak bass is more at-issue 
>> than excess treble (at low volume). Failing both these things, is it 
>> possible to relocate the speakers, moving them more towards room 
>> corners, or closer to the floor, or similar so as to help 'boost' the 
>> bass response. However, this might sacrifice sound-stage.
> 
> The bass is good. I'm using a small kitset pre-amp with no tone controls 
> which goes through a crossover in a second-hand kitset subwoofer 
> amplifier. (Playmaster 300W Subwoofer Amplifier.) The crossover takes 
> away all of signal below a certain point, sums it and feeds it to the 
> 300W MOSFET amp. It has three selectable crossover points and a level 
> control.

**You're an Aussie then?

> 
> I've got it set to the lowest of the crossover points (which are 70, 90 
> and 120Hz) as I want to preserve as much directional information from 
> low frequencies as possible. The Sony SS-K30EDs seem to handle 
> frequencies down to 70Hz just fine with minimal drop-off.
> 
> The subwoofer is a very inefficient thing that I built braced 25mm MDF a 
> couple of decades ago. It's a 10" driver in a ~40l internally-braced 
> sealed box and as such is very 'musical' when compared to ported 
> subwoofers that I've heard. It's response tails off below about 26Hz but 
> I'm fine with that.
> 
>> Only after the obvious fixes have failed should we push towards more 
>> heroic measures.
> 
> Cheers,


**Room damping treatments and ensuring your amp is not clipping should 
go a long way to solving your problems. Give me a call. I'm in the book.


-- 
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9780

On 19/02/2020 6:41 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:

> 
> **Those "tinkling noises" you hear are somewhere around 3kHz. 

**Should read: "....somewhere around 3 ~ 5kHz."

Very few instruments possess fundamentals that reach 5kHz. A very tiny 
number posses harmonics of significant levels that exceed 10kHz.

Turn the volume down and see if the sound is still annoying. I suspect 
you are clipping your amplifier. Clipping can generate large amounts of 
high frequency harmonic content. And, just to shut down any myths you 
may have heard: Valve amplifiers WILL clip and WILL generate excessive 
high frequency harmonics if over-driven.


-- 
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9782

On 19/02/2020 11:14 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 19/02/2020 6:41 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> 
>>
>> **Those "tinkling noises" you hear are somewhere around 3kHz. 
> 
> **Should read: "....somewhere around 3 ~ 5kHz."

It seems to be higher.

FWIW I just did this on-line frequency hearing test:
<http://onlinetonegenerator.com/hearingtest.html>
and through my monitor-mounted Dell soundbar (with 25mm drivers) I could hear to just over 12.5kHz 
but through the stereo in question could only hear to about 11.5kHz. That's quite a bit lower than 
the last time I used a similar tool a few years back. Maybe those years when I spent hours several 
nights a week at a mixing desk at live (loud) gigs in my 20s are coming back to bite me?

So now I'm a bit baffled. The issue I have is due to sounds at the highest frequencies that I can 
hear and that seems to be ~11kHz with this system in the current configuration. Maybe they have a 
peak about there or are flatter than the other speakers I've tried...

> Very few instruments possess fundamentals that reach 5kHz. A very tiny number posses harmonics of 
> significant levels that exceed 10kHz.
> 
> Turn the volume down and see if the sound is still annoying. I suspect you are clipping your 
> amplifier. Clipping can generate large amounts of high frequency harmonic content. And, just to 
> shut down any myths you may have heard: Valve amplifiers WILL clip and WILL generate excessive high 
> frequency harmonics if over-driven.

It's not clipping. The Dynaco ST120 I have hooked up at the moment is a solid-state amp and I no 
longer own any valve amps.

Cheers,
-- 
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification 
in the DSM"
David Melville

This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9786

On 19/02/2020 1:02 pm, ~misfit~ wrote:
> On 19/02/2020 11:14 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 19/02/2020 6:41 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> **Those "tinkling noises" you hear are somewhere around 3kHz. 
>>
>> **Should read: "....somewhere around 3 ~ 5kHz."
> 
> It seems to be higher.

**Until it has been measured, then we're both guessing. Few instruments 
go as high as 5kHz. There is almost nothing beyond 10kHz in any music.

> 
> FWIW I just did this on-line frequency hearing test:
> <http://onlinetonegenerator.com/hearingtest.html>
> and through my monitor-mounted Dell soundbar (with 25mm drivers) I could 
> hear to just over 12.5kHz but through the stereo in question could only 
> hear to about 11.5kHz. That's quite a bit lower than the last time I 
> used a similar tool a few years back. Maybe those years when I spent 
> hours several nights a week at a mixing desk at live (loud) gigs in my 
> 20s are coming back to bite me?
> 
> So now I'm a bit baffled. The issue I have is due to sounds at the 
> highest frequencies that I can hear and that seems to be ~11kHz with 
> this system in the current configuration. Maybe they have a peak about 
> there or are flatter than the other speakers I've tried...

**Until you perform some measurements, you're guessing. You could try to 
acquire a (preferably digital) parametric equaliser and perform some 
measurements.

I still betcha room treatments will solve your problems. IME (which is 
substantial), room treatments solve most mid-HF problems, PROVIDED there 
is nothing inherently wrong with the equipment, or the amp is not being 
clipped.

> 
>> Very few instruments possess fundamentals that reach 5kHz. A very tiny 
>> number posses harmonics of significant levels that exceed 10kHz.
>>
>> Turn the volume down and see if the sound is still annoying. I suspect 
>> you are clipping your amplifier. Clipping can generate large amounts 
>> of high frequency harmonic content. And, just to shut down any myths 
>> you may have heard: Valve amplifiers WILL clip and WILL generate 
>> excessive high frequency harmonics if over-driven.
> 
> It's not clipping. The Dynaco ST120 I have hooked up at the moment is a 
> solid-state amp and I no longer own any valve amps.

**You've checked with a 'scope to ensure no clipping then? Or are you 
guessing again? It might worth looking at the waveform on a 'scope to 
see if there are no parasitics present.


-- 
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9790

On 20/02/2020 10:44 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 19/02/2020 1:02 pm, ~misfit~ wrote:
>> On 19/02/2020 11:14 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 19/02/2020 6:41 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> **Those "tinkling noises" you hear are somewhere around 3kHz. 
>>>
>>> **Should read: "....somewhere around 3 ~ 5kHz."
>>
>> It seems to be higher.
> 
> **Until it has been measured, then we're both guessing. Few instruments go as high as 5kHz. There 
> is almost nothing beyond 10kHz in any music.
> 
>>
>> FWIW I just did this on-line frequency hearing test:
>> <http://onlinetonegenerator.com/hearingtest.html>
>> and through my monitor-mounted Dell soundbar (with 25mm drivers) I could hear to just over 
>> 12.5kHz but through the stereo in question could only hear to about 11.5kHz. That's quite a bit 
>> lower than the last time I used a similar tool a few years back. Maybe those years when I spent 
>> hours several nights a week at a mixing desk at live (loud) gigs in my 20s are coming back to 
>> bite me?
>>
>> So now I'm a bit baffled. The issue I have is due to sounds at the highest frequencies that I can 
>> hear and that seems to be ~11kHz with this system in the current configuration. Maybe they have a 
>> peak about there or are flatter than the other speakers I've tried...
> 
> **Until you perform some measurements, you're guessing. You could try to acquire a (preferably 
> digital) parametric equaliser and perform some measurements.
> 
> I still betcha room treatments will solve your problems. IME (which is substantial), room 
> treatments solve most mid-HF problems, PROVIDED there is nothing inherently wrong with the 
> equipment, or the amp is not being clipped.
> 
>>
>>> Very few instruments possess fundamentals that reach 5kHz. A very tiny number posses harmonics 
>>> of significant levels that exceed 10kHz.
>>>
>>> Turn the volume down and see if the sound is still annoying. I suspect you are clipping your 
>>> amplifier. Clipping can generate large amounts of high frequency harmonic content. And, just to 
>>> shut down any myths you may have heard: Valve amplifiers WILL clip and WILL generate excessive 
>>> high frequency harmonics if over-driven.
>>
>> It's not clipping. The Dynaco ST120 I have hooked up at the moment is a solid-state amp and I no 
>> longer own any valve amps.
> 
> **You've checked with a 'scope to ensure no clipping then? Or are you guessing again? It might 
> worth looking at the waveform on a 'scope to see if there are no parasitics present.

Of course I'm guessing. I know this is rec.audio.high-end but I don't have (or have access to) a 
parametric equaliser or an o'scope. When I say I'm not listening at low 'office level' volumes I 
also don't mean ear-bleeding party volumes. Maybe somewhere in the 'half volume' range on a 60 - 80 
wpc amp... I've currently got a Marantz Stereo Reciever SR4023 hooked up set to 'flat' (it has a 
pre/power loop for the subwoofer amp) and the issue is the same - but the amp belongs elsewhere.

However I have used these speakers with a few different amplifiers, (from 25 watts /channel class A 
up to 160 w/c RMS) and at different volumes and in different locations and the issue I perceive 
persists.

I realise that without measuring we're all making educated guesses. Really I just wanted to know 
what to add to the speaker crossovers / tweeter wires to attenuate frequencies above say 10kHz by 
maybe 3db (and not attenuate the crucial frequencies where female vocals and the upper reaches of 
electric guitar solos and harmonics reside).
-- 
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification 
in the DSM"
David Melville

This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9791

On 20/02/2020 11:05 am, ~misfit~ wrote:
> On 20/02/2020 10:44 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 19/02/2020 1:02 pm, ~misfit~ wrote:
>>> On 19/02/2020 11:14 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 19/02/2020 6:41 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> **Those "tinkling noises" you hear are somewhere around 3kHz. 
>>>>
>>>> **Should read: "....somewhere around 3 ~ 5kHz."
>>>
>>> It seems to be higher.
>>
>> **Until it has been measured, then we're both guessing. Few 
>> instruments go as high as 5kHz. There is almost nothing beyond 10kHz 
>> in any music.
>>
>>>
>>> FWIW I just did this on-line frequency hearing test:
>>> <http://onlinetonegenerator.com/hearingtest.html>
>>> and through my monitor-mounted Dell soundbar (with 25mm drivers) I 
>>> could hear to just over 12.5kHz but through the stereo in question 
>>> could only hear to about 11.5kHz. That's quite a bit lower than the 
>>> last time I used a similar tool a few years back. Maybe those years 
>>> when I spent hours several nights a week at a mixing desk at live 
>>> (loud) gigs in my 20s are coming back to bite me?
>>>
>>> So now I'm a bit baffled. The issue I have is due to sounds at the 
>>> highest frequencies that I can hear and that seems to be ~11kHz with 
>>> this system in the current configuration. Maybe they have a peak 
>>> about there or are flatter than the other speakers I've tried...
>>
>> **Until you perform some measurements, you're guessing. You could try 
>> to acquire a (preferably digital) parametric equaliser and perform 
>> some measurements.
>>
>> I still betcha room treatments will solve your problems. IME (which is 
>> substantial), room treatments solve most mid-HF problems, PROVIDED 
>> there is nothing inherently wrong with the equipment, or the amp is 
>> not being clipped.
>>
>>>
>>>> Very few instruments possess fundamentals that reach 5kHz. A very 
>>>> tiny number posses harmonics of significant levels that exceed 10kHz.
>>>>
>>>> Turn the volume down and see if the sound is still annoying. I 
>>>> suspect you are clipping your amplifier. Clipping can generate large 
>>>> amounts of high frequency harmonic content. And, just to shut down 
>>>> any myths you may have heard: Valve amplifiers WILL clip and WILL 
>>>> generate excessive high frequency harmonics if over-driven.
>>>
>>> It's not clipping. The Dynaco ST120 I have hooked up at the moment is 
>>> a solid-state amp and I no longer own any valve amps.
>>
>> **You've checked with a 'scope to ensure no clipping then? Or are you 
>> guessing again? It might worth looking at the waveform on a 'scope to 
>> see if there are no parasitics present.
> 
> Of course I'm guessing. I know this is rec.audio.high-end but I don't 
> have (or have access to) a parametric equaliser or an o'scope. When I 
> say I'm not listening at low 'office level' volumes I also don't mean 
> ear-bleeding party volumes. Maybe somewhere in the 'half volume' range 
> on a 60 - 80 wpc amp... I've currently got a Marantz Stereo Reciever 
> SR4023 hooked up set to 'flat' (it has a pre/power loop for the 
> subwoofer amp) and the issue is the same - but the amp belongs elsewhere.
> 
> However I have used these speakers with a few different amplifiers, 
> (from 25 watts /channel class A up to 160 w/c RMS) and at different 
> volumes and in different locations and the issue I perceive persists.
> 
> I realise that without measuring we're all making educated guesses. 
> Really I just wanted to know what to add to the speaker crossovers / 
> tweeter wires to attenuate frequencies above say 10kHz by maybe 3db (and 
> not attenuate the crucial frequencies where female vocals and the upper 
> reaches of electric guitar solos and harmonics reside).

**Without proper measurements, we are all still guessing. However, 
should you wish to perform some experiments and spend a little money, 
this product MAY solve some or all your problems:

https://www.behringer.com/Categories/Behringer/Signal-Processors/Equalizers/DEQ2496/p/P0146#googtrans(en|en)

Even at the retail price of around AUS$600.00, it delivers phenomenal 
performance for the money.

Fortunately, the products are easy to find on the second hand market. 
Prices tend to be quite low.


Here is one I found on eBay:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Behringer-Ultracurve-Pro-DEQ2496-24bit-96kHz-parametric-graphic-equalizer-CLEAN/264639370704?epid=1120285389&hash=item3d9dbc55d0:g:MfAAAOSwfOBeTBi8

To put that price into perspective, I recently sold an analogue 
parametric EQ for AUS$500.00. For some reason, some people prefer the 
old, far less powerful and far less flexible, analogue EQs. I've used 
Behringer products many times and, while they're not perfect, they 
generally deliver excellent performance for the money. A parametric EQ 
is a very powerful tool. A digital parametric, like the Behringer, much 
more so. You can zero in on a very narrow band of frequencies and notch 
any problems out. Like all EQs, you can also misuse them.


-- 
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9792

I have to question the suggestion of a device with exclusively XLR inputs and outputs (1/4" phone jacks for auxiliary output) for a non-commercial Audio 2.0 application. 

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | rec.audio.high-end

csiph-web