My definition of Ambience

[PeterSt]

So many things wrong with audio ...

[PeterSt]

But I almost forget myself :

This is not about us being able to discern between e.g. 440 and 441 Hz, but about a rapid change between the two continuously. To me that theoretically is about sheer distortion (might it be a nice sine that 440Hz).

And so yes, many frequencies will play together, but all it really needs is one frequency to play very low which by that incurs for higher excursion and with that for all the on that modulated frequencies to "distort".
Same in the mid of course, but relatievely much less of importance (because of the fewer excursion to begin with).

Right ?
Peter

[CoenP]

Same in the mid of course, but relatievely much less of importance (because of the fewer excursion to begin with).

Right...but mid has higher velocity...

If I look at my Iphone FFT app, most energy is usually in the 80-800 region (voice and instrument fundamentals). Make shure you have some surface there to reduce the excursion. A subwoofer is wrt this issue a good idea.

Though this doppler thing likely clutters our sound reproduction, many musical instruments could derive character from it (ie singing of snares).

regards, Coen

p.s. Phono cartridge flashback!

[PeterSt]

Coen,

Same in the mid of course, but relatievely much less of importance (because of the fewer excursion to begin with).

Right...but mid has higher velocity...

Is that so ? Maybe not. I think the velocity as such depends on the volume level (energy fed to the driver). Not the frequency. But also the diaphragm surface which distributes that energy. So if we regard the mid bass driver a smaller than the woofer's, then yes. Ok ok, Yes.

This is not even easy at all. Think about it ... a mid bass driver with the size of the bass driver. Actually both are the same and both can extend up to 3000Hz. Woofer goes up to 200Hz and midbass starts there and stops somewhere under 3000.
I wonder whether such a thing has been done and whether it is really dumn to do it. We can't say "yea, but that bass driver is not fast enough". It is, because it is rated for 3000Hz (say).

Peter

[CoenP]

Is that so ? Maybe not. I think the velocity as such depends on the volume level (energy fed to the driver). Not the frequency. But also the diaphragm surface which distributes that energy. So if we regard the mid bass driver a smaller than the woofer's, then yes. Ok ok, Yes.

Think about the distance a speaker travels in 1 second for 50Hz and for 5.000Hz. That's 100X more movement for the 5.000Hz one. You gotta have higher speed to do that !

The caveat is that I assume equal amplitude for this reasoning. That is not the same as equal loudness. The higher tones need less excursion for the same loudness given a certain speaker surface.  In the end equal loudness equates to equal velocity (if I am not mistaken).

regards, Coen

[PeterSt]

Think about the distance a speaker travels in 1 second for 50Hz and for 5.000Hz. That's 100X more movement for the 5.000Hz one. You gotta have higher speed to do that !

You can't be wrong there ...
Leaving out the absolute levels (SPL to be created) it still depends on the surface. So if that 100x movement driver receives a 2x larger surface, excursion will be twice as small which makes the velocity twice as small. Frequency doesn't change.

I'm sure I am winding myself into a knot, but while a higher frequency driver needs to be more fast to be able to cope with the speed needed, making its surface twice as large and it can be 2x slower.

Of course these things will have been beaten to death by those who know all about it, but since it is all not *that* simple, I wonder whether this all has been sorted out to the extend needed. For example : many swear by the full range driver. No crossovers and linear phase huray response.
With 30% of this "frequency modulation" distortion.

You know what I think ? I should make digital filters with infinite steepness (of course they won't ring) and next stack as many drivers as needed to keep distortion ultra low. 1 per octave sounds nice and undoubtedly will make sense somewhere (in aftermath and in somewhere 2020). Needs 11. And a crossover with infinite steepness is no crossover anyway. So, done.
Ok, I need 11 amps per channel.

No, this wasn't serious. But I do think I can make such filters.

[PeterSt]

Here is something else we might put our teeth into :

Let's remember that this topic is about my own personal quest of finding out what actually is happening with the Orelino speaker and its unsurpassed bass. So, I could tear that down to way less harmonic distortion at first because of its design which still would only be harmonic distortion i.e. related to the fundamental. Consider that similar to guys liking genuine NOS D/A converters, which btw are most who try that (over the modern OS types). So, loudspeakers show (very roughly) 7% of that in the lower registers.

By now we talk about Frequency Modulation Distortion which is way more severe to good sound; it is unrelated to the fundamental and its appearance can be regarded random; it's just a matter what plays together for (many) frequencies.
And yes, that 30% I mentioned in my previous post is a serious figure (from more angles).

What this is all about is the efficiency of the speaker. So, the speaker as a whole, but with of course the efficiency of the driver(s) as the base of it.
The global math for the FMD is super easy : 6dB less efficiency implies 2x more excursion. I think this in itself implies 6dB more FM Distortion but I'd have to read into it all once more to prove that true. But I also think this depends on the frequencies, so this is all not *that* easy (once again).

Now if we take as a base my 114dB sensitive horns. Without real values (yet) let's say that this implies a general 0.1% FM distortion. Make that 108dB and it is 0.2%. 102 = 0.4%. 96 = 0.8% and we're already at efficiency levels most have. But it can still be worse of course.

Why do I come up with this ?
Well, because this 114dB can also be turned into 117dB.
And I actually did.
What do I perceive of that ? super speed. So, 3dB more efficient and it is perceived as super speed. Super long cymbals as well. Seemingly (or for real) higher (SPL) output of the higher frequencies - same.
Of course this is not because there's 3dB sheer more output now, so that is weighted in.

This is what I found maybe 5-6 weeks ago. No Doppler blahblah in order which is only now. So, first some empirical finding (FWTW) and now the reasoning. With that reasoning though I am able to "see" how much less smeared this all sounds.
To really see this, we should go the other way around first. So what also happened is that I decreased the 114dB to 112dB. This tiny decrease makes all like with a super thick blanket. Far away background music. 100% smear I say now.

My earlier reasoning was that this is because of more heavy impedance impact. And more resistance to go through. So, electronics. Today I don't believe that anymore. And especially not when you see all the sidelobes this FMD implies. It's just one big mess.
(I know, I should produce pictures of this - but this is not so easy because my horns won't show a thing above the (ambient !!) noise through microphone)

Will be continued for sure ...

[CoenP]

Peter,

It is quite correct what you state: high efficiency reduces cone motion for a give sound level. Especially horns provide a very high resistance towards movement of the cones (like a short circuit). The more efficient the horn, the less movement of the diaphragm.

For the low end where horns become very big towards the impractical, big and paralelled drivers is the way to go.

There are some High Eff related benefits like an underhung voicecoil that improve on the linearity.
Anyway from all angles you should design a speaker for a minimum of cone movement.
Dispite the complexity one optimised driver per decade would be more "practical" than one per octave. Kinda like the Cat's setup .

I wonder though how you legally can get 3 dBs more efficiency out of your drivers (that is 3dBs worth of less diaphragm movement while retaining the same sound level). A longer horn?..

regards, Coen

[PeterSt]

Coen, squeezing out more efficiency is not a secret once you know that the drivers are 118dB from origine. How to do that in well-fashion is though.
If you read this - out of all context - you'd say this can't be related to the excursion. But still it is; matter of knowing this driver. Can't say more but it really isn't important either. Well, for my credibility maybe, but never mind that.

Thank you for your insights !
Peter

[christoffe]

Might be interesting!

How Sound Waves Interact with Each Other

http://www.mediacollege.com/audio/01/wave-interaction.html

[PeterSt]

Hey All,

Although somewhat longer ago by now, I think I can add some new information to the "ambience" topic;

As you may remember, in a topic elsewhere I started to let my DAC (NOS1) float on water. It still did not sink, so all OK there.
The reason I did it was to eliminate perceived "relatively severe" vibrations of my concrete floor. And, audibly this did a lot (if I wasn't placeboed in the first place). However :

The "ambience" topic here was about being able to see sub-low frequencies well beyond 20Hz and which was done by real time FFT measurement. This in itself was related to the Orelino speaker I had set up back at the time and my measurements to get the sub low optimal. Okay ...

It was later that my NOS1 was set to float on water and while me and the family had great fun while enclosing bit by bit what I had done (you trying to guess), it had been the same family which encouraged me over and over to re-measure that low frequency response (because of vibrations, perceivedbly - which now should have vanished). But I was fed up of measuring and I never did it.

Until last week at setting up the new Orelo MKII speaker and now tuning that one for the sub-low frequencies, and ...

Gone.

It is not a real apples to apples comparison (because the speaker is different), but since the Orelo MKII only goes way more low than the Orelino, plus I just could hear it for the all better with the floating NOS1, I just can't make anything else out of it than that it just greatly helps (this floating).

Of course we can see it as a downside that now "vibrations" under 20Hz have gone and so will have the "ambience response" but all I can say is that this was not for real and thus not right.

Of course there's ambience and ambience and the real thing will still be in there. However, thinking about the kettle-drum (in a church) example somewhere mentioned in this topic, I don't think that I will still see responses up to 15Hz or whatever it exactly was; most probably it stops at 26Hz or so now, but I'll have to check it.

So easy to get fooled by so so many things ...
Peter

[manisandher]

Hey Peter, just for my understanding, your NOS1 is still floating on water, right? And you still believe that this really helps, right?

Mani.

[christoffe]

Any „suspension“ of our choice favours the SQ, and Peters approach is very, very special and the result seems to be positive.

Peter can be very lucky that the vibrations/resonances did not damage his housing foundations, especially the walls to the “water front”. (this is a joke, but .... .)
I never experienced such “deep tone” resonances with my feet before. Unbelievable!!

(elephants are communicating ……….; and the French Army made some tests with 1 to 5Hz frequencies with disastrous results some years ago)

Joachim

[PeterSt]

Hey Peter, just for my understanding, your NOS1 is still floating on water, right? And you still believe that this really helps, right?

Mani, yes, still floats. Needs a water top off each 4 days (which to my belief is audible right away).
Whether it helps ... I hope to have described that in my previous post !

Peter