🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <kun1bdINN33c@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> nemeth@helix.Eng.Sun.COM (Les Nemeth) writes:
>
>What I was refering to was what I suppose would be termed as coloration
>of the sound, not necessarily distortion. Or, does coloration show up as
>some form of distortion? I think not... Something that has a warm sound
>to it, could be considered to sound muddy. Just like something that has
>cold/hard sound could be termed as tinny. In either case, you end up with
>listener fatigue after only a short period of time. But, more so with 
>the tinny effect.

Yes coloration *is* distortion of the waveform, often an intermodulation
product, sometimes referred to as "muddy". The perfect reproducer has zero 
coloration. It doesn't have exaggerated high frequency response, making it 
"shrill or harsh". And it doesn't have poor low frequency response, making 
it "tinny". All these are measurable distortions of the original waveform. 
Any frequency response other than absolutely flat over the audible band
is a distortion.

In any Hi Fi system, the major source of intermodulation distortion,
group phase distortion, and frequency response distortion is the 
loudspeaker. Generally they are no better than 7% total distortion. 
That's why a recording can never duplicate a live performance. Even 
if the recording is perfect, and the medium is perfect (as it is with 
the CD), the loudspeaker is going to dominate the sound. Arguing about
putting smaller tap shoes on angels so more can dance on the head of
a pin is irrelevant when you have an elephant trying to join them.

Gary