Second Generation of Yamaha HS-speaker series @ Musikmesse

[Melodeath]

There's a debatable aspect of higher frequencies being inaudible but still affecting the audible spectrum as pointed by Rupert Neve years ago... Just saying...
But yeah, probably more of a marketing trick in this case. It doesn't make these better or worse and new isn't always better.
Pretty interested in having the hs-7 as a secondary setup depending on the price though.

Yeah, if the extra high frequencies cause distortion in a transformer or speaker, or whatever you're using and these artifacts are in the audible range, sure it's obviously audible. But there is currently not really any debate about the limits of human hearing, except within the hi-fi/gearslut/pseudo-science/etc. community.

 

[Brett - K A L I S I A]

What do you mean Brett?

I mean, why would people use those frequencies if they didn't impact the sound? But let's not go there, this is another debate and doesn't have much in common with the original subject

 

[Jaymz]

ADAM's go 40/50khz I think...

 

[LeSedna]

I do believe those higher frequencies have an effect, would it be only intuitional. If the tweeter's goal is only to reproduce those frequencies, I'd say it is only marketing hype, because it's probably not worth it for the kind of customers who would be interested in the first place. I don't think anyone would care specifically about those frequencies mixing wise but maybe they have an impact to other low frequencies, being their harmonics. I have no honest idea, just my physics and signal treatment courses in mind.

Isn't the 48/96/192 khz problem different ? In this case it's about multiplying the number of informations per unit of time, thus getting closer and closer to the source wave, reducing artifacts and uncoherent frequencies. The problem is different : the first is about "are we even able to hear it in the first place ?" while this one is more about "are our ears accurate enough to feel the difference ?"

 

[MatrixClaw]

if the selling point is, that there is a new tweeter, that can go now up to 30 Khz makes me kind'a sceptical. But as always with audio equipment, the ear has to be the judge

There's a new tweeter, new woofer and a new port design. Quite a bit different.

 

[Melodeath]

I mean, why would people use those frequencies if they didn't impact the sound? But let's not go there, this is another debate and doesn't have much in common with the original subject

I do believe those higher frequencies have an effect, would it be only intuitional. If the tweeter's goal is only to reproduce those frequencies, I'd say it is only marketing hype, because it's probably not worth it for the kind of customers who would be interested in the first place. I don't think anyone would care specifically about those frequencies mixing wise but maybe they have an impact to other low frequencies, being their harmonics. I have no honest idea, just my physics and signal treatment courses in mind.

Isn't the 48/96/192 khz problem different ? In this case it's about multiplying the number of informations per unit of time, thus getting closer and closer to the source wave, reducing artifacts and uncoherent frequencies. The problem is different : the first is about "are we even able to hear it in the first place ?" while this one is more about "are our ears accurate enough to feel the difference ?"

Modern converters oversample many many times 192kHz. The question of what sounds best is merely "which sample rate does this particular converter sound best at." This wll either be by design, or happenstance. There is no one sample rate that sounds best, because that doesn't make sense. 44.1kHz is more than capable of producing all the frequencies in the range of human perception. Having equipment that is capable of going well beyond the range of human hearing is not a bad thing, of course. It ensures flatness and accuracy in the human range. This is why tweeters might be designed to go to 40k for example, because 20k would not really be a "stressful" area in the design. CDs don't contain any data above the Nyquist frequency of 22,050 HZ anyway.

 

[Josh Burgess]

With all that aside, I really like my HS80Ms and would like to try these new ones to see how they are. If they were similar but slightly clearer/sharper sounding, I might be tempted.

 

[Mashreef]

@Brett what speaker's do you use?

 

[colonel kurtz]

There's a debatable aspect of higher frequencies being inaudible but still affecting the audible spectrum as pointed by Rupert Neve years ago... Just saying...

i remember seeing something on gearslutz a few years back where neve said they once had a hardware EQ unit that went all out of whack, and was bugging the shit out of everyone in the studio. when he went to repair it, he found that it had some sort of oscillation going on at 50k - which is obviously far beyond the range of noise that we can physically notice, but is still apparently somehow perceived by the ear/brain. same thing goes for low frequencies...if you stood next to a giant woofer pumping 10hz, you couldn't hear the shit, but you'd feel it regardless.

anyways...i'm kinda pumped for the HS7's...i've flirted with the idea for a couple years of ditching my alesis monitors for HSM80's, but wasn't too big on the idea of 8" monitors in my small room, and 5" just doesn't produce enough low end w/o a sub - which i don't wanna fuck with. these seems like a good "mama bear" compromise, assuming the price is in line with the previous iterations.

 

[kaomao]

I mean, why would people use those frequencies if they didn't impact the sound? But let's not go there, this is another debate and doesn't have much in common with the original subject

Ha ok got it

 

[Brett - K A L I S I A]

@Brett what speaker's do you use?

ADAM's go 40/50khz I think...

Adam S3X-H, from 32Hz to 50kHz yes.
I don't know if that's an accurate statement, but I would think something that can go up to 50 (be it kHz or miles/hour for a car, or whatever) will be much more controlled and "easy" at 20 (far from its performance limit) than something already reaching its limits (to keep the car analogy, take a small city car and a Ferrari, although both can drive at 130km/h, they will behave differently at that speed).

 

[4Eyes]

Then what do you think about people who record or mix in 48kHz, 96 or 192?

are you talking about sampling frequency, the whole different story like speaker frequency range?

the point of higher frequency range for speakers is more headroom and less power is turned into heat

 

[AboutBlank]

Adam S3X-H, from 32Hz to 50kHz yes.
I don't know if that's an accurate statement, but I would think something that can go up to 50 (be it kHz or miles/hour for a car, or whatever) will be much more controlled and "easy" at 20 (far from its performance limit) than something already reaching its limits (to keep the car analogy, take a small city car and a Ferrari, although both can drive at 130km/h, they will behave differently at that speed).

yeah, why should headroom just work for lows?!
I feel that my a8x are much more transparent in the highs because of the Khz range, even if I don't hear 40khz's

 

[LeSedna]

There is actually a very very low frequency (we're talking hertz only) that the human body needs because it's a permanent frequency we receive all the time wherever we are, for a reason I don't remember. I remember it is actually considered when talking design for long distance space travel shuttles by creating an artifical slow and low vibration. I don't remember the details, if it is linked to the brain (alpha/beta/theta/whatever waves) or to internal organs, but I found it interesting.

I think as well low frequencies have a tendency to create discomfort feelings to humans (as in "odd fear"), and that even though not perceived a low vibration can potentially create irrational fear or the feeling something supernatural is going on or about to go on and is studied in cases of ghost sightings !

 

[Audiosprite]

There is actually a very very low frequency (we're talking hertz only) that the human body needs because it's a permanent frequency we receive all the time wherever we are, for a reason I don't remember. I remember it is actually considered when talking design for long distance space travel shuttles by creating an artifical slow and low vibration. I don't remember the details, if it is linked to the brain (alpha/beta/theta/whatever waves) or to internal organs, but I found it interesting.

that's really interesting, don't suppose you could link to more info?

 

[TaylorG]

So HS7's up here in Canadia are $299/per.

I'm really considering getting some.

 

[Mikaël-ange]

^ my point was, if you dont hear those frequencies how you gonna mix them? Could bit a little hard dont you agree?

You can't ear those frequency but you can feel it.
Also what people don't know, or forget it that everything affect everything.
Your low end affect the perception you have from your top end and vice versa.
If you go deeper, nine time out of ten people LP everything.
Poor quality lp filter (as hp filter) affect other frequency by ringing higher or lower in the frequency spectrum. That also create phase shift all over the place...
All this help create mix that sound thin, 2 dimensional and become harsh.
And that result from poor mixing environment with not so great speaker...

That said, it a good think they decided to re design their speaker line. HS serie was a good quality to price ratio but have some room for improvement.

 

[egan.]

are you talking about sampling frequency, the whole different story like speaker frequency range?

the point of higher frequency range for speakers is more headroom and less power is turned into heat

I don't think that's the point at all. There are 3 basic reasons for extended range speakers:
1) moving the roll off and any response aberrations beyond the audible range
2) making a speaker capable of reproducing the same spectrum as the recorded medium (up to 48khz for a 96k sample rate).
3) marketing

 

[Artean]

Anyone seen a frequency response plot of the HS7 or 8 yet, or gotten a chance to test them? I'm curious how they compare to the HS80.

I'm about to replace my KRK V4 mk2 + sub, and I have been looking at the HS80 for a while till I saw this announcement. My KRK's sure have a pleasing sound to them but my mixes seem to translate very badly to other systems. I blame both my lack of skill as well as the scooped and low-end lacking V4...

Since my room is rather small I fear the HS80 or HS8 might be a tad to heavy on the lows. The HS7, however, could hopefully be just about right.

Edit. Found some demonstration on youtube which seem to indicate some fundamental differences between the Yamaha HS7 and HS8. Oh, choices.

 

[laszlozsolt82]

Just recived a pair of Yamaha Hs 7 monitors.