"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 14:05:41 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

~~ snippage ~~

But, I disagree about one thing: You can come closer to theoretical
perfection with the bass frequencies than you can with higher frequencies.

Ok, why?

Later,

Tom

OK, here we go. Think of the following bass-capable instruments playing a
series of notes ranging from 40 cycles (open E on an electric bass) to 80
cycles: Electric bass, upright bass, pipe organ, grand piano. Subtract two
things from all these notes: The harmonics native to each instrument, and
the attack (how the string instruments are plucked, how the keys are struck,
which pedals, if any are in use). What you PRETTY MUCH have left is the
purest bass tones you can expect to be aware of in music, but not as pure as
a tone generator, which is irrelevant anyway because nobody listens to
those. Even synthesizers have SOME sort of color added to them when played.
OK...maybe Keith Emerson was an exception.

With those remaining tones, you can work on a speaker's design until you've
PRETTY MUCH eliminated any serious hot spots or dead spots in the speaker's
response, short of those created by specifics of the instruments or their
users. Without the harmonic overtones, which exist in the mid to high
frequencies, the listener notices nothing objectionable if the speaker is
correctly designed, just as the listener doesn't notice much directionality
in bass notes if the higher frequencies are filtered out.

Now, add whatever speakers you choose for reproducing the harmonics and the
attack, along with higher instruments and human voices. Do a lousy job with
this aspect and you introduce what is MORE noticeable to the human ear:
Maybe you add too much mid range, so the higher notes on a bass guitar end
up sounding too fat and boomy. Or, you add lousy tweeters and the harmonics
of the piano give you a headache. Keep in mind that you've added dubious
features to a speaker that was designed to sound perfect at 80 cycles and
below.

The problem with the mid & high frequencies is that at least for home
speakers, the designers have to take into consideration things like
separation, which leads to a million different competing approaches. Some
designers believe skinny speakers enclosers work best, so the tweeters'
output doesn't bounce off too big a flat area. Look at KEF 207s, for
instance:
http://www.kef.com/kefamerica/produc...207_image.html

Their pitch is that they wanted the high frequencies to emanate from a shape
most similar to a human head, or the openings of instruments like saxophones
& flutes. Doesn't quite match the soundboards of acoustic guitars, violins &
cellos, though, does it? Whattya gonna do, though? Unless you design a
speaker to reproduce just one instrument, everything is a compromise.

Add electric instruments to this question and you have a complete mess.
Because every player has a preference with regard to amplifiers, any home
speaker design has an ice cube's chance in hell of being physically shaped
like whatever amp Clapton might've played at one concert vs another. Was the
album made by miking the amp for some of its effects,and mising that with a
direct feed to the recorder for the rest? Who knows? Did he play a big, wide
Marshall amp for one gig, and a much smaller box at another? At least with
non-electric instruments, they're all the same size & shape. A viola is a
viola.

Visit real audio stores, listen to a dozen decent-to-excellent speakers, and
unless the listening room is phuqued up, you'll usually find you're OK with
the bass reproduction. It's the higher frequencies that'll have you
switching demo disks a million times, trying to decide whether you like the
one that reproduces female voice the best, or the one that best handles
flutes, high piano notes, guitar, mandolin.