Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site rochester.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!seismo!rochester!ee461 From: ee461@rochester.UUCP (VLSI class) Newsgroups: net.audio Subject: Re: Are all DADs alike?(+ phase response of speakers) Message-ID: <2435@rochester.UUCP> Date: Sun, 31-Jul-83 21:00:22 EDT Article-I.D.: rocheste.2435 Posted: Sun Jul 31 21:00:22 1983 Date-Received: Mon, 1-Aug-83 12:31:50 EDT References: <2107@tekmdp.UUCP> Organization: U. of Rochester, CS Dept. Lines: 123 Mike Kersenbrock asked recently: "How much phase shift does a "typical" speaker system introduce (...) as compared to the phase shift in a CD player? (...) It seems to me that if I move my head back (from the speakers) about 0.3 inches, that I have caused a 180 degree phase shift at 20Khz, but less than 10 degrees shift at 1KHz, so does a 0.3 inch head movement have the same effect as the total error in the CD player process (...) ?" A few weeks ago I started to look for new speakers for my system, and did a little literature research followed by some speaker auditioning after finding out that some speaker manufacturers advertise their products by using terms like "coherent phase and time response" (which had no meaning to me at the time). What I've found out about this may provide an answer to Mike's question and it may be of interest to anybody who is considering buying new speakers. First, it appears to me, that moving your head does not cause any differences in the percepted sound; you introduce a time delay rather than a phase shift. Hence the sound reaches your ears with exactly the same relationships between various frequencies as it would if your head was 0.3 in. closer to the speakers. It would make a difference only if the acoustic field was a standing wave, and with most music material it won't happen. Much closer effect to a phase shift between different frequencies (180 degrees was reported for some CD players) can be obtained by reversing the polarity of one speaker in the stereo pair. This is an exagerration, but the basic effect is the same - the sound appears "smeared" and originating everywhere, as the directionality is lost. In almost every speaker on the market, several drivers dedicated to reproduce different frequency ranges are used. The separation of these ranges is never ideal; e.g., if the crossover frequen- cy between the woofer and the midrange is 500 Hz, you may ex- pect that the range 400-600 Hz will be reproduced by both drivers. If there is a phase misalignment, the cones of both drivers do not move synchronously and the result is much the same as with the speaker polarity reversed, although to less extent because of the narrower frequency band. I think that the effect of a continuous phase shift observed in CD players should be similar but less noticeable than the effect introduced by speak- ers. This, however, does not mean that it will be negligible when good speakers are used. Personally, I find the lack of spa- tial definition in the sound image rather annoying and I'd prefer that my CD player would not contribute any phase shifts. The phase shift in multi-driver speakers is introduced mainly by the crossover network, where usually filters of 3rd or 4th order are used. The consequence of this is that phase shifts up to 270 or 360 degrees are obtained. Although 360 degree shift at some frequency means that the cones in two speakers move synchronously at this frequency, one of them lags a full cycle behind the other, which will have unpleasant transient effects (and essen- tially all music consists of transients). For example, when you feed a single voltage pulse into the speaker, you get two sound pulses from it, one from each driver. This effect is diminished by the fact, that one from the two signals with large phase shift between them is simultaneously attenuated by the high order filtering network. However, lower phase shifts are less at- tenuated and still measurable and audible. A single driver speaker can be designed so that it will not in- troduce any phase shifts. This is mainly because of the fact, that the phase shift is a relative quantity and having only one driver gives you no reference point. I am sim- plifying here; as the membrane in the speaker is not rigid, various frequencies are reproduced differently, resulting in some phase shift as well as in efficiency differences and non-uniform frequency response. Exactly these problems cause that most speakers use different drivers for different ranges (as it is easier to design a driver working correctly over a narrow bandwidth), and crossover networks to separate ranges reproduced by different drivers. And there comes the phase shift. Ideally, one driver should be enough for the perfect reproduc- tion, and there are some speakers using full frequency drivers with no need for the crossover network. Bose 901 (or older 2201) are an example; I think that Tannoy also used to make one driver designs; also I've heard about some laboratory standard reference speaker from Bruel & Kjaer that was to be mounted in 6x6 ft board (no enclosure!) and used in anechoic chamber for microphone calibration. Most of the problems with the phase response is attributed to the high order crossovers. Theoretically, only the 1st order cross- over can be designed so as to provide flat phase response (a proper driver alignment is also necessary). The problem is that the drivers used in such a speaker must be designed for perfect reproduction of a much wider frequency range than when high ord- er, steep slope filter is used. Final remarks of this lengthy submission: I recall only two brands that use first order crossovers, which, by the way, are exactly the two brands I am having a hard time to choose between. These are: Vandersteen IIC and Thiel 03a. Their phase response is flat to within 10 degrees. Most of the other manufacturers do not publish the phase response as usually they have nothing to be proud of. I recall some reviews where the phase response flat to within +-40 degrees was considered to be quite an achievement. I would recommend auditioning Vandersteen's or Thiel's to anybody who is considering spending $990 or more on a pair of speakers. (Vandersteen's are $990 a pair, Thiel's are $1100 a pair). I have compared them to IMF Referenceselling at some $3600 a pair or so, and they were clearly better than the IMF's in imaging, and most of all, in "naturalness" of the sound. I'd say that Vandersteen's give the reproduction that is the closest to a live music I've ever heard. Try listening to the "Sheffield drum record" - you'll be able to distinguish every drum in the percussion set by it's position (in all 3 dimensions and without Carver's sound holography). On the same day but a few hours later, I also heard KEF105.2 and B&W802, (some $2800 a pair). There is no comparison - Vandersteen's outclass them by a wide margin (n.b. KEF and B&W use 4th order crossovers). All faults of KEF's are a material for a separate submission. Anyway, B&W (advertised as: Best in the World) stands rather for: Boomy Woofer, at least this was my impression. Krzysztof Kozminski (ee461@rochester)