[sdiy] Dynamics and speakers, was:Advice

[Richard Wentk]

At 00:52 04/02/2004 +0100, Thomas Dunker wrote:

>  Hey, couldn't resist commenting on this since the reproduction of
>uh..."life-like" dynamics has been my quest as a DIY audio nut for the
>past 10 years I have spent a great deal of time trying to figure out what
>it is the audio industry actually wants us to believe. Some of the most
>able speaker technology in terms of dynamics (or dynamic linearity to be
>more precise) just happens to be the oldest, and in domestic hi-fi terms
>also the "most obsolete" - namely horn speakers. Wherever horns are used
>in the pro audio industry today (SR rigs, stadiums, movie theatres etc.)
>it's precisely because they have vastly better dynamic linearity
>(distortion vs. output SPL) than most alternatives. Horns are also used a
>lot specifically for other primary reasons, like dispersion control, but
>they got me interested because of the dynamic potential.

This isn't something I know much about, but isn't it difficult to build 
horns with good bass extension that don't take up an entire room? So the 
real trade-off is between efficiency and bass extension? Also obviously 
those lower octaves - which might not have been considered so essential 
50-odd years ago, before the arrival of techno ;) - are where most of the 
power goes. And if they're missing you're not going to need anything like 
the same level of amplification.

I'm not flaming or disagreeing violently - just something I thought I read 
somewhere.

>Summed up, "state of the art" speakers and the amps that drive them are
>not suited for really big dynamics. Even most studio monitors except maybe
>Westlakes, UREIs, TADs and nice big old JBLs.

Quite. My reference here is some studio time with - I think - some (small) 
door-sized Westlakes, which could reproduce a kick drum at full SPL without 
obvious distortion or colouration.

>  It's not the recording industry's fault that the consumer audio people
>turn out so much misengineered junk, but it's sad how it's defined
>lifelike dynamics out of the "hi-fi" world. It's like they try to bring it
>back with amazing new digital media - WHY, IF THE SIGNAL WILL BE
>COMPRESSED DOWN TO 30-40dB DYNAMIC RANGE ANYWAY.

It's not quite that bad. :) It depends on the style of music. Electronic 
music tends to use more compression than most. I suspect this is because 
electronic sound sources don't offer the same nuances as acoustic ones, so 
you're not really losing much information by compressing everything.

>I know from experience, that only proves how much compression the average 
>speaker ADDS. I had no idea
>until I could hear it for myself. Never would have happened at the hi-fi 
>store.

I think it's a shame more people don't realise this. I have no problem 
hearing the compression on the living room hifi. The studio monitors are 
slightly better, but still a long way from being accurate.

Maybe I should buy some Westlakes. :)

>Pardon the ramble and off-topicness...

No - that was a *very* interesting and informative mini-article you wrote 
there. Thanks for taking the time.

Richard