[Gary Eickmeier]

"KH" wrote in message
...

So, you have an epiphany that tells you those of use who prefer direct
radiating speakers are nuts, and reflected sound is the only way to have
realism, BUT you need other people to invest time, money, and energy into
exploring *if* you *may* be right about said epiphany?

I used no such terms. I explained the perceptual effects and correlated them
to radiation pattern etc.

And, please, explain why you continue to avoid my simple direct question
about whether if you and I disagree about a system being realistic, is one
of us wrong? Could it be that you know full well that either way you
answer requires that you accept that individual preference is a prime
factor? And that, further, there can be no "paradigm" that explains the
whole theory of "correct" stereo reproduction unless you exclude
preference as a variable? Not *the* variable as you attempt to claim, but
a major variable.

Keith, Floyd Toole's entire career has been devoted to a series of studies
on listener preferences in various loudspeaker and rooms tests. The
assumption is that the more preferable speakers have some qualities that are
more correct w respect to reproduction. His big story is that a smooth, wide
radiation pattern is preferred to a more directional speaker. I had a few
arguments with him (as have others) that he hasn't gone far enough into the
world of various speaker types, testing mainly direct firing speakers such
as those that Harman made. Nevertheless, the principle is the same - the
only way we can test for sound reproduction is what we call preference
testing, comparing two examples that vary by just one factor, then asking a
lot of people which they prefer, and then inferring something about speaker
design from that.

This is essentially what I have been doing on an anecdotal basis for the
last 30 years, after I discovered somthing very significant about speaker
positioning.

You say you have never heard of the hole in the middle effect, except from
me. That doesn't put you in a very good light, knowledge wise. You say maybe
you prefer a boxy sound, or that some people may prefer directional
speakers, and that sounds more like live to you. OK, fine. Dave Moran calls
it the "honking" effect, where the high frequencies narrow in their
radiation pattern as FR goes up.

Sieffried Linkwitz asked the musical question straight out, which radiation
pattern, speaker positioning, and room treatments lead to greater realism in
the reproduction. I have been studying these factors for a long time, and
have given my anwers and a theory on why it works that way. If you say it is
no more than a preference one way or another, then fine, but you would have
to try it first to see just what that preference might be, wouldn't you?

That is how it is done. Suggest a variable, put it to a listening test, see
if there is a definite preference, and figure out what is going on with the
physics and press on, hopefully arriving at some asymptotic curve that tells
us something about stereo theory.

I am bellering from my soapbox because very few researchers would think of
trying a negative directivity speaker, nor would they know just how to
position them in the room, and even fewer would think of trying specular
reflectivity at the front of that room. All of "The Big Three" must be
correct in order to perceive the improvement and discover what I have about
these factors. They have been doing it by cut and try and happy accident all
these years and still not stumbled upon IMT, so here I am. Bose tried the
negative directivity index speaker, but screwed up speaker positioning and
got in a lawsuit with Consumers Union over the hole in the middle effect.
Made the situation even worse, so people wrote all that research off. Mark
Davis did an amazing experiment on time/intensity trading to develop the
Soundfield One speaker, but failed to try the rear and side reflected
portion to complete the picture. Magneplanar developed a great ribbon
tweeter that is very omnidirectional, but has equal output front and rear.
Still too hot on the direct sound. Same for MBL - they got the equi-omni
frequency response really good, but don't say much about positioning or room
treatment. A man named Jeffrey Borish invented a system and wrote a paper
about deploying additional speakers up front, to the sides of the main
speakers, on time delay, to simulate the early reflected sound from the
concert hall. He used a description of the image model of live sound to
explain why he was doing that. I had lunch with him at one fine AES, and
explained that simply reflecting part of the speaker output from your room's
walls accomplished the same thing, only more naturally, but he didn't buy
it.

So I get my big chance and enter the Linkwitz Challenge with my cheap mockup
speakers and win, because my speakers are "on theory." Yes, the win was
based on a preference, a preference that my speakers sounded more like live
sound.

It's a whole deal.

Gary Eickmeier