[Gary Eickmeier]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
YES YES YES Neil, the playback speakers should have the same radiation
pattern as the instruments, or they will sound different! That is what
is missing from standard stereo theory.

I'm rather unclear about this. Are you saying all 'instruments' have the
same 'radiation' pattern? Surely this would have to be the case for your
theory to work?

No, not quite. But extrapolate now from miking single instruments and
playing back on speakers with similar radiation patterns to considering the
entire orchestra and soundstage as the "object" that is being close miked.
No, not miking each instrument this time, but miking the orchestrea as a
whole as the object being recorded. We now ask ourselves what is the general
radiation pattern of the orchestra on the soundstage of a good hall, and
model the spatial "shape" of the playback to that. The total pattern of
original sounds consists of the direct sound from the instruments followed
by a much wider pattern of early reflected sounds and finally the full
reverberant field.

So you picture this huge pattern and model your playback after that. Pull
the speakers out from the front wall, position them about 1/4 of the width
of the room in from the side walls and out from the front wall. Manipulate
the D/R ratio so that there isn't too much direct sound to you due to the
closeness of the speakers and to set up the strong reflected sound pattern
to the rear and sides, just as it was live. Throw in some surround speakers
to support teh full reverberant field, and you have completed the playback
model.

Gary Eickmeier

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Neil" wrote in message
...

Although I understand your hypothesis, I don't agree with the presumptions
that lead you to that notion. As I stated before, speakers DO NOT have the
same radiation pattern as musical instruments. Any system that presumes
otherwise is just creating special effects. Not that there's anything
wrong with that, but such systems are not related to the principles behind
playing traditional stereo recordings.

Beyond that, few recordings are made with the assumption that the
listener's environment will be able to emulate the recording environment.
I don't know of any rock or pop recordings that are made with that
assumption. But I admit to only knowing of a small percentage of such
recordings, even though I've been a pop and rock musician for over 50
years.

Hey fellers -

I think this is an observational thing before it can be a theoretical thing.
For some reason I was just trying to tell you about my new speakers that I
have finally gotten built after so many years of dreaming about it and
trying to do it myself. I am in central Florida, Lakeland, and you are all
welcome to come and observe for yourselves. Dedicated listening room, home
theater 21 x 31 ft, acoustic treatment, audio, video, most surround
soundvvvvvvvsystems, my own recordings and some from a few recording
friends, commercial recordings and video including my video. Wine, cheese,
coffee,

Gary

[geoff]

On 19/11/2014 7:27 p.m., Gary Eickmeier wrote:


YES YES YES Neil, the playback speakers should have the same radiation
pattern as the instruments, or they will sound different! That is what is
missing from standard stereo theory.

No. The signal is being picked up by microphone/s . That cannot help but
align the sound at each diaphragm so that the source pattern is
irrelevant. The stereo positioning of that instrument is determined by
the position of the microphones. Anything else is impractical.

For your way to work we'd need an instrument-shaped speaker equating to
each instrument in whatever ensemble. So why not just go to the concert ?

geoff

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
So you picture this huge pattern and model your playback after that.
Pull the speakers out from the front wall, position them about 1/4 of
the width of the room in from the side walls and out from the front
wall. Manipulate the D/R ratio so that there isn't too much direct
sound to you due to the closeness of the speakers and to set up the
strong reflected sound pattern to the rear and sides, just as it was
live. Throw in some surround speakers to support teh full reverberant
field, and you have completed the playback model.

Sounds like you've been reading a Bose catalogue from 40 years ago. And
even worse, believed it.

--
*Why isn't there mouse-flavoured cat food?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Neil[_9_]]

On 11/20/2014 12:54 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Hey fellers -

I think this is an observational thing before it can be a theoretical thing.
For some reason I was just trying to tell you about my new speakers that I
have finally gotten built after so many years of dreaming about it and
trying to do it myself.

Well, OK! This brings us full-circle, since I "jumped in" to the
conversation with a question about your speaker design. Getting back to
that, if I recall from the drawings of your design, it uses multiple
drivers of the same size in a common enclosure... is that the case? If
so, how did you match those drivers?

--
best regards,

Neil

[William Sommerwerck]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...

Neil, the playback speakers should have the same radiation pattern
as the instruments, or they will sound different! That is what is missing
from standard stereo theory.

It's missing, because "standard stereo theory" //does not// assume strong
interaction between the room and the speakers. If the room is going to
interact with the speakers, it should do so in a way that enhances the sound
without coloring it (eg, LEDE).

Except for small groups, the belief that the performers should sound as if
they're in the listening room is objectively wrong. Very wrong -- both
practically and philosophically.

The recent Jacobs' "St Matthew Passion" transports you to the performance
venue. And it does so without the need for listening-room interaction or
enhancement. I almost believe I'm sitting at a live performance. That's what
"high fidelity" is about.

It's worth noting that Bose recognized the fact that a speaker's radiation
pattern doesn't match that of most musical instruments, and stated that the
company was doing research on resolving this. Of course, no research on this
would have been needed if your speaker didn't bounce the sound all over the
room.

The current "Stereophile" review of the DEQX system makes the point that the
system first equalizes the speaker itself at the closest distance at which
driver blending occurs. Then, when the room as a whole is EQ'd, the system
knows which part of the correction is from the speaker, and what the room
itself needs.

I'm not sure this would work in practice (unless the room EQ were delayed --
which I believe it is). But it shows that the designers paid attention to the
distinction between the speaker's intrinsic behavior, and how that behavior is
modified by the room. The two are not treated as a whole.

------------------------------------

One of the things you don't seem to grasp, Gary, is that what ultimately
matters is what sounds arrive at your ears -- not (necessarily) how those
sounds were recorded or are reproduced. There are many ways to skin a cat, and
even if your system does work, it's a clumsy and inflexible method that makes
too many assumptions about the original recording.

I've lived with hall synthesis for close to 30 years, and have had plenty of
time to decide whether it's truly musically and acoustically effective.

Hall synthesis almost always make older recordings sound newer. That is, it
(seems to) reduce the sonic colorations that mark a recording as having been
made in, say, the early '50s. Why this is, I don't know -- but it is.

I have an experiment for you. Get a copy of Bruno Walter's 1953 "'Das Lied von
der Erde", and play it through your speakers. What do you hear? Using hall
synthesis, the recording sounds as if was made in the late '50s, and it
develops a plausible sense of stereo spread, without sounding phasey or
unnatural. I doubt your speakers can do either of these things.

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

No, not quite. But extrapolate now from miking single instruments and
playing back on speakers with similar radiation patterns to considering the
entire orchestra and soundstage as the "object" that is being close miked.
No, not miking each instrument this time, but miking the orchestrea as a
whole as the object being recorded. We now ask ourselves what is the general
radiation pattern of the orchestra on the soundstage of a good hall, and
model the spatial "shape" of the playback to that. The total pattern of
original sounds consists of the direct sound from the instruments followed
by a much wider pattern of early reflected sounds and finally the full
reverberant field.

That's nice if it's a recording of an orchestra, but then the next recording
will be a rock band, and then the recording after that will be a trumpet solo.

You can try to vaguely sort of emulate the radiation pattern of one instrument
but if you do that you wind up with speakers that can effectively play back
only one instrument.

The orchestra is actually very difficult because the combined radiation
pattern is very strange.... stand on a ladder in the audience and you will
hear the balances between the brass and strings change as you climb up.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...

The orchestra is actually very difficult because the combined radiation
pattern is very strange.... stand on a ladder in the audience and you will
hear the balances between the brass and strings change as you climb up.
--scott

Yes and I have been a little concerned about that lately. They won't let me
put the mike stand up high on stage lately because it interferes with
movement and sight lines, so I have been recording (my concert band) from
the first row center just above the audience's heads, just above the stage
level. I got a good rendition of most instruments, even the chorus behind
them, but I can imagine that a lot of bodies were blocking a lot of the
sound and, as you say, the radpats down that low wouldn't be the best.
Hanging the mikes would be difficult.

Maybe I can convince them to get some DPAs and hang them permanently in
place...

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Neil" wrote in message
...
On 11/20/2014 12:54 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Hey fellers -

I think this is an observational thing before it can be a theoretical
thing.
For some reason I was just trying to tell you about my new speakers that
I
have finally gotten built after so many years of dreaming about it and
trying to do it myself.

Well, OK! This brings us full-circle, since I "jumped in" to the
conversation with a question about your speaker design. Getting back to
that, if I recall from the drawings of your design, it uses multiple
drivers of the same size in a common enclosure... is that the case? If so,
how did you match those drivers?

Neil,

I had these built by a very talented DIY speaker builder up in Indiana. I
told him all about my radiation pattern theories with drawings and such, and
he took that info and expanded on it to suggest how to achieve it with the 4
MTM vertical arrays rather than what I was thinking of, a larger rectangular
box with maybe a woofer and a tweeter on each side placed horizontally. His
design should have a more rounded, better matched pattern between the
mid/woofers and the tweeters with less diffraction. The MTM arrays are each
in their own triangular enclosure within the square tall box, and the front
two panels have an attenuator pot to shape the frontal pattern for certain
reasons.

Those reasons have to do with Mark Davis's distance/intensity trading effect
of the DBX Soundfield one plus the D/R ratio of the Bose 901.

You lower the D/R ratio so that the direct field does not dominate the image
model - in other words to "light up" all of the virtual images about equally
to get the aerial image of the instruments behind the plane of the actual
speakers by means of reflection. I reasoned that the 901 might have a little
too much reflected sound, so I wanted to roll my own and try different
ratios.

The distance/intensity trading - yes, I said distance/intensity and not
time/intensity - is the result of a simple experiment that Dr. Davis did in
building the Soundfield One. He had several subjects walk left and right in
the lab in front of a pair of simple box speakers and at each point adjust
the gain of the farther speaker to bring the central image back to center.
That then became the radpat that might keep the central imaging stable,
rather than just straight ahead or angled to the listener in one spot only.
He called it distance/intensity because they found that once you get a few
inches off center you have already exceeded the time of arrival parameters
for full tilt to one side or the other, therefore the more important
parameter is the gain, which depends on your distance from the two speakers.

I have further found that the importance of speaker placement is amplified
when you have a reflecting type design. If you place them as I have
recommended, you create an even lattice of actual and virtual speaker
sources, all images the same distance from each other. If you place them
closer to any wall, you create a clustering of images that calls attention
to itself and creates, shall we say, two "bunches" of sound with a hole in
the middle, rather than fusing a strong center image and having everything
image evenly all across the soundstage. This major error in placement
recommendation was the cause of the CU lawsuit against Bose, neither of them
understanding what the problem was. This in turn was the reason that I
contacted the company, to have them incorporate my discovery for best sound.

So I kept on listening to all manner of speakers, paying attention to their
radiation patterns and positioning etc and trying to shoot down my own
theories about stereo, also reading everything I could about stereo,
imaging, spatial hearing, the great psychoacoustic experiments, also trying
to shoot down my ideas and never finding anything that contradicted them.

I am not a speaker builder or technician as far as building crossover
networks or measuring speakers, so I just kept looking around for someone
who was curious enough and adventurous enough to put in the time and effort
and to believe in it. Finally found Dan and here we are! The speakers are a
sub/sat system that incorporate my Velodyne F-1800 and cross over at 100Hz.
Used with surround speakers IAW the total theory.

Gary

[Neil[_9_]]

On 11/20/2014 1:00 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"Neil" wrote in message
...
On 11/20/2014 12:54 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Hey fellers -

I think this is an observational thing before it can be a theoretical
thing.
For some reason I was just trying to tell you about my new speakers that
I
have finally gotten built after so many years of dreaming about it and
trying to do it myself.

Well, OK! This brings us full-circle, since I "jumped in" to the
conversation with a question about your speaker design. Getting back to
that, if I recall from the drawings of your design, it uses multiple
drivers of the same size in a common enclosure... is that the case? If so,
how did you match those drivers?

Neil,

I had these built by a very talented DIY speaker builder up in Indiana.

(rest snipped)
Sorry, I thought you were the designer of the speaker system. I think
that "I don't know, I left it up to someone who said they did know" is a
much briefer response, and doesn't draw us back into those problematic
hypotheses about stereo sound presentation.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Gary Eickmeier]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...

Neil, the playback speakers should have the same radiation pattern
as the instruments, or they will sound different! That is what is missing
from standard stereo theory.

It's missing, because "standard stereo theory" //does not// assume strong
interaction between the room and the speakers. If the room is going to
interact with the speakers, it should do so in a way that enhances the
sound without coloring it (eg, LEDE).

Except for small groups, the belief that the performers should sound as if
they're in the listening room is objectively wrong. Very wrong -- both
practically and philosophically.

The recent Jacobs' "St Matthew Passion" transports you to the performance
venue. And it does so without the need for listening-room interaction or
enhancement. I almost believe I'm sitting at a live performance. That's
what "high fidelity" is about.

It's worth noting that Bose recognized the fact that a speaker's radiation
pattern doesn't match that of most musical instruments, and stated that
the company was doing research on resolving this. Of course, no research
on this would have been needed if your speaker didn't bounce the sound all
over the room.

The current "Stereophile" review of the DEQX system makes the point that
the system first equalizes the speaker itself at the closest distance at
which driver blending occurs. Then, when the room as a whole is EQ'd, the
system knows which part of the correction is from the speaker, and what
the room itself needs.

I'm not sure this would work in practice (unless the room EQ were
delayed -- which I believe it is). But it shows that the designers paid
attention to the distinction between the speaker's intrinsic behavior, and
how that behavior is modified by the room. The two are not treated as a
whole.

------------------------------------

One of the things you don't seem to grasp, Gary, is that what ultimately
matters is what sounds arrive at your ears -- not (necessarily) how those
sounds were recorded or are reproduced. There are many ways to skin a cat,
and even if your system does work, it's a clumsy and inflexible method
that makes too many assumptions about the original recording.

I've lived with hall synthesis for close to 30 years, and have had plenty
of time to decide whether it's truly musically and acoustically effective.

Hall synthesis almost always make older recordings sound newer. That is,
it (seems to) reduce the sonic colorations that mark a recording as having
been made in, say, the early '50s. Why this is, I don't know -- but it is.

I have an experiment for you. Get a copy of Bruno Walter's 1953 "'Das Lied
von der Erde", and play it through your speakers. What do you hear? Using
hall synthesis, the recording sounds as if was made in the late '50s, and
it develops a plausible sense of stereo spread, without sounding phasey or
unnatural. I doubt your speakers can do either of these things.

William and all -

I just love talking about all this, but the communication doesn't seem to be
happening, mainly because of our different audio experiences. All I can tell
you William is that all of your assumptions and impressions about what I am
doing are not correct. Nor are you disagreeing with me all that much. When
you prefer your Ambisonics system or your hall synthesizer, you are
admitting my point about the spatial nature of sound. We need to study all
audible aspects of the process and the differences between the live and the
reproduced. You may remember the famous Bose revelation about the difference
between "hi fi" and live sound, the major difference being the sound fields
produced by live instruments and hi fi speakers in a small room. The world
just thought that hey, now that we are in stereo, all we need to do is have
two of the same kind of speakers we have been using for mono and we are
done.

But it is not so easy. I have been studying all aspects of this for so many
years and sort of completing the Bose research. I am an industrial designer
by education. Our marching orders were to study all aspects of the product
that we were on and let the form follow the function and improve it if
possible. To build a speaker, we must understand all aspects of sound fields
in rooms, scalar differences, acoustics, radiation patterns and how to
achieve them.

We have been doing everything by ear, which is fine if you have no better
ideas on the relationship between the live sound and the recorded result.
Floyd's Circle of Confusion says it best - we select monitors that make our
recordings sound the best, and we make recordings that sound best on our
monitors. But we also keep coming up with ideas on how to do it better, like
Ambisonics, hall sythesizers, omnidirectional speakers, loudspeaker binaural
and on and on until we realize that there IS no single stereo theory written
down in all of the textbooks for us to understand in any scientific or
engineering sense. I don't think that even the Archimedes Project came to
any conclusions.

This will probably go on forever if we keep fighting with each other. The
AES is making a noble effort with their conventions with esoteric papers on
every aspect of the problem, conferences on special subjects like Spatial
Audio. The magazines are off on their own quests, usually way off track with
listening to wires and amplifiers and speaker diaphragm materials.

So two points I guess - the group here is wrong if they think that there is
some standard, settled stereo theory that I just don't understand, and I am
not going to convince anyone of anything. So again I extend warmest welcome
to any and all to come give a listen and your opinions and thoughts to
advance the cause or shoot it down. We cannot EVER reproduce the same live
sound at home on speakers and we all know that because it is an acoustical
problem and we cannot duplicate the acoustics of another room. So the
question is, how can we optimize all of the factors to make our recordings
sound the best and closest to the joy of the real thing.

Me too if someone wants to talk straight to me and is sincerely interested
in the subject - such as you - but I am afraid I will overstay my welcome
and get more of the shall we say unhelpful posts that make me feel like I am
being argumentative and contradictory and ignorant. I started the new
thread about the theory of stereo in hopes of going positive, but that is
going south again too.

I will look for the Walter recording, but did they have stereo yet in 1953?
I have some of the earliest stereo tapes from the 50s - got my stereo
recorder in 1957 - but the oldest tape I can remember is about '55. So if I
can find it I will report back, but please don't presume ahead of time that
my system will sound "phasey and unnatural." Assume that I would not have
been listening to an idiot system and I am just as knowledgeable as most and
not talking out of turn. There isn't much that I "don't grasp" about stereo.

Rambling again. Sorry. Tired.

Gary

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"Gary Eickmeier" skrev i en meddelelse
...

Rambling again. Sorry. Tired.

Then don't. Sleep and post a terser post that is more to the point the next
day.

Gary

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[hank alrich]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
So you picture this huge pattern and model your playback after that.
Pull the speakers out from the front wall, position them about 1/4 of
the width of the room in from the side walls and out from the front
wall. Manipulate the D/R ratio so that there isn't too much direct
sound to you due to the closeness of the speakers and to set up the
strong reflected sound pattern to the rear and sides, just as it was
live. Throw in some surround speakers to support teh full reverberant
field, and you have completed the playback model.

Sounds like you've been reading a Bose catalogue from 40 years ago. And
even worse, believed it.

ˆš

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Neil" wrote in message
...
On 11/20/2014 1:00 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"Neil" wrote in message
...
On 11/20/2014 12:54 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Hey fellers -

I think this is an observational thing before it can be a theoretical
thing.
For some reason I was just trying to tell you about my new speakers
that
I
have finally gotten built after so many years of dreaming about it and
trying to do it myself.

Well, OK! This brings us full-circle, since I "jumped in" to the
conversation with a question about your speaker design. Getting back to
that, if I recall from the drawings of your design, it uses multiple
drivers of the same size in a common enclosure... is that the case? If
so,
how did you match those drivers?

Neil,

I had these built by a very talented DIY speaker builder up in Indiana.

(rest snipped)
Sorry, I thought you were the designer of the speaker system. I think that
"I don't know, I left it up to someone who said they did know" is a much
briefer response, and doesn't draw us back into those problematic
hypotheses about stereo sound presentation.

I think I gave a very complete explanation of the process wherein I designed
the speaker that I wanted and Dan contributed to the design and built it. It
is designed around those problematic hypotheses and proves me correct. It
has a unique radiation pattern in all of audio. The success of the design
has little to do with matching drivers and a lot to do with my problematic
hypotheses and that radiation pattern..

Gary

[Neil[_9_]]

On 11/21/2014 1:16 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"Neil" wrote in message
...
On 11/20/2014 1:00 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"Neil" wrote in message
...
On 11/20/2014 12:54 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Hey fellers -

I think this is an observational thing before it can be a theoretical
thing.
For some reason I was just trying to tell you about my new speakers
that
I
have finally gotten built after so many years of dreaming about it and
trying to do it myself.

Well, OK! This brings us full-circle, since I "jumped in" to the
conversation with a question about your speaker design. Getting back to
that, if I recall from the drawings of your design, it uses multiple
drivers of the same size in a common enclosure... is that the case? If
so,
how did you match those drivers?

Neil,

I had these built by a very talented DIY speaker builder up in Indiana.

(rest snipped)
Sorry, I thought you were the designer of the speaker system. I think that
"I don't know, I left it up to someone who said they did know" is a much
briefer response, and doesn't draw us back into those problematic
hypotheses about stereo sound presentation.

I think I gave a very complete explanation of the process wherein I designed
the speaker that I wanted and Dan contributed to the design and built it.

I don't want to constantly react to the loose use of terms, such as
"theory", "design" etc., other than to say that they can throw a
conversation intended to be one thing into something entirely different.

For example, that's what happened when I originally responded and then
repeated with questions about design, since the "designer" is the one
with the requisite technical knowledge to execute a project, and you
stated that you were that person. As one who has designed many speaker
systems to accomplish various objectives (almost all of which were
constructed by others), I was mainly asking technical questions about a
couple of factors related to your design.

I have no issue with the idea that you've come up with a sound system
that met your expectations and that you enjoy. After all, that is
usually the goal in audio, regardless of whether the system is a custom
creation or purchased off the shelf.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Neil" wrote in message
...

I don't want to constantly react to the loose use of terms, such as
"theory", "design" etc., other than to say that they can throw a
conversation intended to be one thing into something entirely different.

For example, that's what happened when I originally responded and then
repeated with questions about design, since the "designer" is the one with
the requisite technical knowledge to execute a project, and you stated
that you were that person. As one who has designed many speaker systems to
accomplish various objectives (almost all of which were constructed by
others), I was mainly asking technical questions about a couple of factors
related to your design.

I have no issue with the idea that you've come up with a sound system that
met your expectations and that you enjoy. After all, that is usually the
goal in audio, regardless of whether the system is a custom creation or
purchased off the shelf.

OK, fair enough. I'm just getting tired of fighting with everyone about the
tiniest little details, trying to shoot me down instead of letting me tell
you of some success in an audio project.

In design school, the designer was not necessarily the builder of the
product in question. Take automotive design as the best example. But even if
it were a simple toaster or lawn mower, we would simply come up with a new
"look" or study some aspect of that type of product and make an improvement
in the function of it and then the marching orders for the engineers would
be to make it work. An example of that would be a new type of camera.

Therefore, when I say I designed the speaker I didn't mean that I selected
components and ran them through a few computer programs to predict their
response or radiation pattern or needed crossover design. Dan was extremely
capable of those things. I just knew that what was audible about
loudspeakers is the radiation pattern, frequency response, and power into
the room. I had certain desing goals in mnd for those, and I didn't care
what kind of drivers or electronics it would take to make it happen.

So is that fair enough on my part? "Hey guys - I have just made some
speakers with a unique radiation pattern based on some ideas I developed
along the years studying the problem of imaging, and they work as
predicted!"

Gary

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

[...]
In design school, the designer was not necessarily the builder of the
product in question. ..

It sounds to me as though the terminology means different things to
different people.

What you are describing sounds more like an arts college to me, where
dreamers come up with concepts and wish lists, then expect engineers
(the real designers in my terminology) to somehow make them work.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Tom McCreadie]

Adrian Tuddenham wrote:

What you are describing sounds more like an arts college to me, where
dreamers come up with concepts and wish lists, then expect engineers
(the real designers in my terminology) to somehow make them work.
Agreed

"Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get."
(Jerry Avins - comp.dsp)

[William Sommerwerck]

Gary, you are stepping on thin ice when you use Count Floyd as a technical
reference.

Count Floyd is not only a bad scientist, but is guilty of -- let's call it
telling less than the whole truth -- to prove his point of view and make a
well-respected speaker manufacturer's products look bad -- and audiophiles
feel stupid for buying them.

I wouldn't trust Count Floyd to tell me if the Sun was shining.

[Neil Gould]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"Neil" wrote in message
...

I don't want to constantly react to the loose use of terms, such as
"theory", "design" etc., other than to say that they can throw a
conversation intended to be one thing into something entirely
different.

For example, that's what happened when I originally responded and
then repeated with questions about design, since the "designer" is
the one with the requisite technical knowledge to execute a project,
and you stated that you were that person. As one who has designed
many speaker systems to accomplish various objectives (almost all of
which were constructed by others), I was mainly asking technical
questions about a couple of factors related to your design.

[...]

OK, fair enough. I'm just getting tired of fighting with everyone
about the tiniest little details, trying to shoot me down instead of
letting me tell you of some success in an audio project.

Some of those details aren't as tiny as you suggest, and you've presented
them in a newsgroup populated by many folks with the technical knowledge and
experience in audio call them into question.

In design school, the designer was not necessarily the builder of the
product in question.

Actually, it's quite common that the designer is not the builder of a
project. One will seldom (if ever) see an architect pouring concrete or
welding iron beams. On the other hand, those performing such tasks may not
have a clue about strength of materials, expansion coefficients related to
temperature, or any of the other factors that go into the _design_ of the
project. The same can be said for the design of audio equipment.

[...]
Therefore, when I say I designed the speaker I didn't mean that I
selected components and ran them through a few computer programs to
predict their response or radiation pattern or needed crossover
design.

That is what through me off. When I say that I designed the speaker, it
*does* mean that I selected and tested the components, designed the form of
and selected the appropriate materials for the enclosure and had them built
to my specifications by those with the requisite expertise.

So is that fair enough on my part? "Hey guys - I have just made some
speakers with a unique radiation pattern based on some ideas I
developed along the years studying the problem of imaging, and they
work as predicted!"

Well, that would have kept me from asking about the details! ;-)

--
best regards,

Neil

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
In design school, the designer was not necessarily the builder of the
product in question. Take automotive design as the best example. But
even if it were a simple toaster or lawn mower, we would simply come up
with a new "look" or study some aspect of that type of product and make
an improvement in the function of it and then the marching orders for
the engineers would be to make it work. An example of that would be a
new type of camera.

Therefore, when I say I designed the speaker I didn't mean that I
selected components and ran them through a few computer programs to
predict their response or radiation pattern or needed crossover design.
Dan was extremely capable of those things. I just knew that what was
audible about loudspeakers is the radiation pattern, frequency response,
and power into the room. I had certain desing goals in mnd for those,
and I didn't care what kind of drivers or electronics it would take to
make it happen.

What you're basically saying is you left the design work to someone else.
What you produced was a concept.

The actual specification of the drivers - and how a crossover etc is
achieved - are vital to any speaker design. As indeed are more mundane
things like the choice of cabinet materials and how that too is
constructed and treated acoustically.

To get such things even vaguely right costs lots of research and
development time. As you'd know if you looked at the design history of
accepted good speakers.

--
*Jokes about German sausage are the wurst.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

OK, fair enough. I'm just getting tired of fighting with everyone about the
tiniest little details, trying to shoot me down instead of letting me tell
you of some success in an audio project.

I imagine I had a platinum album but we only sold a dozen copies.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

Tom McCreadie wrote:

Adrian Tuddenham wrote:

What you are describing sounds more like an arts college to me, where
dreamers come up with concepts and wish lists, then expect engineers
(the real designers in my terminology) to somehow make them work.
Agreed

"Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get."
(Jerry Avins - comp.dsp)

That's really good.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Scott Dorsey]

hank alrich wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:

OK, fair enough. I'm just getting tired of fighting with everyone about the
tiniest little details, trying to shoot me down instead of letting me tell
you of some success in an audio project.

I imagine I had a platinum album but we only sold a dozen copies.

"What kind of books do you write?"

"Bestsellers."

"Have you sold many of them?"

"No."
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Actually, it's quite common that the designer is not the builder of a
project. One will seldom (if ever) see an architect pouring concrete or
welding iron beams. On the other hand, those performing such tasks may not
have a clue about strength of materials, expansion coefficients related to
temperature, or any of the other factors that go into the _design_ of the
project. The same can be said for the design of audio equipment.

[...]
Therefore, when I say I designed the speaker I didn't mean that I
selected components and ran them through a few computer programs to
predict their response or radiation pattern or needed crossover
design.

Plus I don't have a wood shop.

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

What you're basically saying is you left the design work to someone else.
What you produced was a concept.

The actual specification of the drivers - and how a crossover etc is
achieved - are vital to any speaker design. As indeed are more mundane
things like the choice of cabinet materials and how that too is
constructed and treated acoustically.

To get such things even vaguely right costs lots of research and
development time. As you'd know if you looked at the design history of
accepted good speakers.

But I.....

You might not believe the expertise of the guy who actually built these
speakers. He could be a one man research and development and engineering
department of many medium sized companies. Maybe I am not as familiar as
most of you with how the magic is done, but he can take the specs of a
component (like a driver) and put it into a computer program that can spit
out the box size, frequency response, and usually from the box shape what
the radiation pattern might look like. Then of course he has the MLS
equipment afterward to check actual results, crossover points, etc. Very
many of these DIY speaker builder guys are like that. It was a pleasure to
work with him all along the way. And even if I DID have a wood shop, it
would take me a lot longer to learn the craft of every aspect of speaker
building.

So how many out there are speaker builders???

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
Gary Eickmeier wrote:

OK, fair enough. I'm just getting tired of fighting with everyone about
the
tiniest little details, trying to shoot me down instead of letting me
tell
you of some success in an audio project.

I imagine I had a platinum album but we only sold a dozen copies.

Well I've got one of them Hank!

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
Gary, you are stepping on thin ice when you use Count Floyd as a technical
reference.

Count Floyd is not only a bad scientist, but is guilty of -- let's call it
telling less than the whole truth -- to prove his point of view and make a
well-respected speaker manufacturer's products look bad -- and audiophiles
feel stupid for buying them.

I wouldn't trust Count Floyd to tell me if the Sun was shining.

I just threw that in there for you William.

But seriously, what is your problem with him? Yes, I had a battle with him
in the pages of the AES Journal for a couple of months, but I stopped out of
respect for all of the work he and Sean have done on my favorite subject.
The battle was about their using only or mostly box speakers for their
speaker preference testing. Then they draw conclusions about preference from
a limited sampling of the marketplace. Dave Moran had a simiilar battle. But
after I quit arguing with him we became friends. Now we are (all of us,
admit it) old retired farts sitting around jawing about the good old times.

Gary

[Ralph Barone[_2_]]

hank alrich wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:

OK, fair enough. I'm just getting tired of fighting with everyone about the
tiniest little details, trying to shoot me down instead of letting me tell
you of some success in an audio project.

I imagine I had a platinum album but we only sold a dozen copies.


That's understandable. Platinum isn't cheap and it's hell to press.

[geoff]

On 23/11/2014 3:03 p.m., Gary Eickmeier wrote:


You might not believe the expertise of the guy who actually built these
speakers. He could be a one man research and development and engineering
department of many medium sized companies. Maybe I am not as familiar as
most of you with how the magic is done, but he can take the specs of a
component (like a driver) and put it into a computer program that can spit
out the box size, frequency response, and usually from the box shape what
the radiation pattern might look like.

But pretty much anybody can do that !


Then of course he has the MLS
equipment afterward to check actual results, crossover points, etc. Very
many of these DIY speaker builder guys are like that. It was a pleasure to
work with him all along the way. And even if I DID have a wood shop, it
would take me a lot longer to learn the craft of every aspect of speaker
building.

You ahve a garage and some power tools ? That all you need.


So how many out there are speaker builders???

Me for a start.

geoff

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...


To get such things even vaguely right costs lots of research and
development time. As you'd know if you looked at the design history of
accepted good speakers.

Whoops - just noticed that one. Do you recall how I told of modeling it
after the Bose 901 in the D/R ratio and the DBX Soundfield One in the
frontal radiation pattern? Those are the important characteristics of a
speaker to study, not the cone materials or crossover designs, which I
imagine are, as you say, not that difficult with computers. What IS
important is the overall principle of how the system puts sound into the
room.

Gary

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"Gary Eickmeier" skrev i en meddelelse
...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

To get such things even vaguely right costs lots of research and
development time. As you'd know if you looked at the design history of
accepted good speakers.

Whoops - just noticed that one. Do you recall how I told of modeling it
after the Bose 901 in the D/R ratio and the DBX Soundfield One in the
frontal radiation pattern?

That process in itself is strictly speaking not design. As said quite a few
times by now, that loudspeaker concept has some merit in "architectural
audio", ie. obtaining a pleasing harmononious distribution of sound in the
living room.

Deciding how they should look and where the loudspeaker units are to be
positioned DOES constitute design and it IS protectable as a WORK, even if
it is not speaker construction. Kinda like the difference between designing
a car and designing an engine, you write a spec sheet and ask the techie
guys to meet it and to make it look (and disperse) like you want it.

Those are the important characteristics of a speaker to study, not the
cone materials or crossover designs,

Yes, read Harwood, he is the most important source on this. The most
important characteristic is however - Harwood does go in that direction -
the temporal behavior of the loudspeaker construction or array.

which I imagine are, as you say, not that difficult with computers.

Computer optimization does prevent the worst cross-over ailments of old, but
while loudspeaker construction does progress in a logical manner it contains
choices that are pure art and intution.

What IS important is the overall principle of how the system
puts sound into the room.

Only the sound.

Gary

We're them techie guys here Gary, you are one them art guys who wants it to
"look like that". Fine and well, and your loudspeaker design is neat. What
got you opposition was claiming to have a technically new design that
changes musical playback.

You have designed a living room audio concept that is likely to give
aestethically pleasing playback results with a large propertion of the
existing recordings on the planet. Leave it at that and simply say: "it
sounds nice in the room due to the large dispersion and has the advantage
that dispersion can be adjusted to fit the reflectivity of the room walls.

And get some KEF Q-somethings and set them up as near or close field
monitors to evaluate your recordings on.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

What you're basically saying is you left the design work to someone else.
What you produced was a concept.

The actual specification of the drivers - and how a crossover etc is
achieved - are vital to any speaker design. As indeed are more mundane
things like the choice of cabinet materials and how that too is
constructed and treated acoustically.

To get such things even vaguely right costs lots of research and
development time. As you'd know if you looked at the design history of
accepted good speakers.

But I.....

You might not believe the expertise of the guy who actually built these
speakers. ...

So how many out there are speaker builders???

Over the course of several years I have built a collection of P.A.
speakers to meet various specialised requirements, including tailored
radiation patterns to minimise feedback in difficult venues. Some of
these were stacked columns and others were folded horns and they all had
to be made of lightweight materials with complicated bracing to minimise
resonances. All the design and construction for these was my own work
(using hand tools in the garden shed).

On the high quality side, I have built a pair of internally-amped studio
monitoring speakers using some of the principles established by the BBC
research department (Shorter, Harwood et al.) during their research that
led to the LS3/5a, LS5/8 and LS5/9. The woodwork for these was done by
a professional cabinet maker, but he just followed my drawings, all the
design work was my own. As an experiment, I recorded a pipe organ and
then played it back through these monitors mounted either side of the
organ swell shades - it fooled the organ tuner in to believing he was
hearing the actual instrument.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
You might not believe the expertise of the guy who actually built these
speakers. He could be a one man research and development and engineering
department of many medium sized companies. Maybe I am not as familiar
as most of you with how the magic is done, but he can take the specs of
a component (like a driver) and put it into a computer program that can
spit out the box size, frequency response, and usually from the box
shape what the radiation pattern might look like. Then of course he has
the MLS equipment afterward to check actual results, crossover points,
etc.

If it were that simple every speaker made in the last 30 years or so would
be perfect.

--
*PMS jokes aren't funny; period.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Neil Gould]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

So how many out there are speaker builders???

Apparently, enough of us that you shouldn't just dismiss our comments. This
is r.a.p., after all.

BTW -- a designer doesn't need a wood shop, but does need to understand the
materials, construction techniques and so forth.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k...
"Gary Eickmeier" skrev i en meddelelse
...

We're them techie guys here Gary, you are one them art guys who wants it
to "look like that". Fine and well, and your loudspeaker design is neat.
What got you opposition was claiming to have a technically new design that
changes musical playback.

You have designed a living room audio concept that is likely to give
aestethically pleasing playback results with a large propertion of the
existing recordings on the planet. Leave it at that and simply say: "it
sounds nice in the room due to the large dispersion and has the advantage
that dispersion can be adjusted to fit the reflectivity of the room walls.

Peter please - I do not wish to be dismissed so easily as a Goober speaking
at random. As I have tried to communicate, I have been studying acoustics
and psychoacoustics and stereo theory from the playback standpoint, and also
recording and how that affects the whole process. I have learned a lot here
and have the greatest respect for all of you who do what you do so well. You
have led me to a couple of nice books, convinced me on the Behringer DEQ
2496 analyzer/equalizer, taught me things about various miking techniques,
and we have exchanged a few recordings. I would just ask the same respect in
my field of study, which is not "art" and the looks of the speakers but the
concept, theory, hypothesis, of studying the image model of the final result
in comparison to the live sound as a new proposed benchmark for the realism
of the result.

There is a lot more that needs to be done, and could be done if I could
generate more interest. Maybe someone who understands what I am doing could
suggest that I manipulate the diffusion of the front and side walls to
further shape the soundstage to be less specific and more universal in its
soundstage properties. Maybe Dave Moulton is right about an absorptive front
wall. Maybe there is something to this "Atmos" ceiling speaker business.
Maybe some Modeler computer program could do all of these experiments in a
few seconds, I dunno.

Anyway, THAT is what we are talking about here, not pretty watercolor
paintings of speakers. I am trying to tell you that I have the first major
step in this image modeling concept and it works as proposed.

And get some KEF Q-somethings and set them up as near or close field
monitors to evaluate your recordings on.

Well, I could get some better computer speakers for the editing room but
right now I am just relying on headphones and small speakers and then taking
the results to CD to play on the main system. I also, of course, play my CDs
on various other systems such as in the car and send them to other people to
comment. But no, listening to some KEF Q-somethings would not be any
revelation to me.

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote in message
valid.invalid...

Over the course of several years I have built a collection of P.A.
speakers to meet various specialised requirements, including tailored
radiation patterns to minimise feedback in difficult venues. Some of
these were stacked columns and others were folded horns and they all had
to be made of lightweight materials with complicated bracing to minimise
resonances. All the design and construction for these was my own work
(using hand tools in the garden shed).

On the high quality side, I have built a pair of internally-amped studio
monitoring speakers using some of the principles established by the BBC
research department (Shorter, Harwood et al.) during their research that
led to the LS3/5a, LS5/8 and LS5/9. The woodwork for these was done by
a professional cabinet maker, but he just followed my drawings, all the
design work was my own. As an experiment, I recorded a pipe organ and
then played it back through these monitors mounted either side of the
organ swell shades - it fooled the organ tuner in to believing he was
hearing the actual instrument.

Yes Adrian - and I know how careful and meticulous and knowledgeable a
recording engineer you are. It certainly is fun to see a plan come together!
I am thinking that the organ speakers were sounding so real partly because
they were playing in the same room and from the same location of that organ.
Great work nonetheless.

Gary

[hank alrich]

Neil Gould wrote:

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

So how many out there are speaker builders???

Apparently, enough of us that you shouldn't just dismiss our comments. This
is r.a.p., after all.

BTW -- a designer doesn't need a wood shop, but does need to understand the
materials, construction techniques and so forth.

Interestng that Gary wrote "speaker builder" when he does not build
"his" speakers. He might have written "speaker designer", but he also
does not design the speakers.

These are the goofiest threads I have ever read here, and that is saying
SOMETHING.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[PStamler]

I've designed and built a few, and used to do custom designs and upgraded crossovers for a local retail outlet. It's fun, except for the sawing.

Peace,
Paul

[Gary Eickmeier]

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
Neil Gould wrote:

Interestng that Gary wrote "speaker builder" when he does not build
"his" speakers. He might have written "speaker designer", but he also
does not design the speakers.

These are the goofiest threads I have ever read here, and that is saying
SOMETHING.

Keep working on it Hank. Your first goal should be reading comprehension.
There is no contradiction between asking how many speaker builders are in
the group and my not being one. As for speaker designer, if I am not the
designer of my new speakers, what would you call it?

Gary