Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire[_2_] Audio_Empire[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 235
Default Surround Sound

On Monday, November 11, 2013 7:16:58 PM UTC-8, John Stone wrote:
On 11/11/13 6:59 PM, in article ,

"Audio_Empire" wrote:



On Monday, November 11, 2013 10:44:14 AM UTC-8, Scott wrote:


On Monday, November 11, 2013 5:06:12 AM UTC-8, news wrote:

"KH" wrote in message

Completely wrong. If this were the case all speaker designers would have to
do would be to consider . radiation patterns and then apply digital EQ.
Clearly speaker design is not as simple as that. There are all kinds of
audible distortions in speakers beyond frequency response.


That was kind of my point. I just didn't want to get sucked into another
debate over Gary's unorthodox theories, so I just glossed over my response to
his query about why speakers sound as they do with the obvious.


Gary's "theories" around loudspeaker sound align closely with those of Amar
Bose, especially the early MIT research he conducted that ultimately led to
the Bose 901. As to whether or not this is "unorthodox" depends on how you
view that design, as it places the vast majority of its emphasis on
radiation pattern. Mr. Bose himself believed that loudspeaker distortion was
not audible, except under conditions of extreme overload.


Yes, some of Gary's theories do align closely with Amar Bose' early research.
But parroting Dr. Bose is not the sum total of Gary's stereo theories, which ARE
more than a little unorthodox.
  #42   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
news news is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Surround Sound

"John Stone" wrote in message
...
On 11/11/13 6:59 PM, in article ,
"Audio_Empire" wrote:

On Monday, November 11, 2013 10:44:14 AM UTC-8, Scott wrote:
On Monday, November 11, 2013 5:06:12 AM UTC-8, news wrote:

"KH" wrote in message


Completely wrong. If this were the case all speaker designers would have
to
do would be to consider . radiation patterns and then apply digital
EQ.
Clearly speaker design is not as simple as that. There are all kinds
of
audible distortions in speakers beyond frequency response.


That was kind of my point. I just didn't want to get sucked into another
debate over Gary's unorthodox theories, so I just glossed over my
response to
his query about why speakers sound as they do with the obvious.


Gary's "theories" around loudspeaker sound align closely with those of
Amar
Bose, especially the early MIT research he conducted that ultimately led
to
the Bose 901. As to whether or not this is "unorthodox" depends on how you
view that design, as it places the vast majority of its emphasis on
radiation pattern. Mr. Bose himself believed that loudspeaker distortion
was
not audible, except under conditions of extreme overload.


Yes, and a part of everyone's audio literature should be a pair of articles
by Mark Davis on what is really audible in loudspeakers. He carefully went
through all of the mythology about speakers, such as transient response,
phase linearity, time alignment, maybe some others, and showed that none of
them is audible, that it pretty much boils down to frequency response and
radiation pattern. Dr. Bose showed that distortion is not audible until the
speaker is driven almost to destruction by too much power, something that
doesn't usually happen.

Mark Davis showed how he and a colleague, Campbell Searle, did several
experiments with radiation pattern that showed you could make one speaker
sound like any other by manipulating the radiation pattern. My point in my
post was to show that a Martin Logan or a Quad or a Maggie or an MBL sound
like they do simply because of that factor, not because they have super
light drive elements or curved fronts except for how that affects the
radpat.

The "surprising findings" part of most of my writing is that it is desirable
to have not only a multi-directional speaker, but in fact more output in the
reflecting direction, something that no typical speaker designer would ever
think of trying. Beyond that discovery, there are ways of "shaping" the
radiation pattern to give the speakers a degree of time/intensity trading so
that the imaging stays put as you walk around the room. In one prototype I
made for the Linkwitz Challenge, I could walk left and right and also right
up to the speakers and the imaging remained planted firmly, seeming to come
from points behind the plane of the speakers.

The "virtual speakers" that I write about are the reflected speakers in the
model. If you draw the reflected sound in a bird's eye view of your total
horizontal listening situation as additional sources behind the walls rather
than doing a ray tracing drawing, you can see the spatial nature of what you
are hearing a lot clearer. You must also understand the radiation pattern of
your speakers and how that would affect the strength of those virtual
images, such as dipole or omni or negative directivity, and how they are
aimed. If you do this, you can understand the phenomena of the hole in the
middle, stretched soloists, wandering imaging, that are otherwise so
mysterious to most and are caused by mis-positioning speakers with a high
amount of reflected output.

Loudspeakers should be designed to become Image Model Projectors, rather
than direct radiators. They should project an auditory scene across the
front of your room, from wall to wall, with pinpoint focus, depth, and
spaciousness. All of the factors that cause these phenomena are well known
and are due to the radiation pattern, room positioning, and acoustic
qualities of the room surfaces near the speakers. It is a wonderful thing to
behold for the first time, but impossible to communicate to a resistant
audience in a newsgroup post. This does not serve the reason that we are all
gathered here together reading all of these many posts. We have a common
goal, realistic music reproduction, that we seem to fight over more than try
and understand each other. I am one of you, not the enemy, just trying to
tell you what I know. There is nothing in any of it that contradicts any
valid research into acoustics or psychoacoustics. I have been studying all
of this for something like 30 years, listening to everything I could,
interviewing speaker designers, doing some experiments of my own, always
getting strong confirmation of all of it.

I have been using 901s at home all this time because they are the closest
design in radiation pattern in existence right now and they can take any
amount of power I can supply them with and not flatten out or distort, and
when positioned properly (and used with subwoofers) they can demonstrate
most of the qualities of imaging that I am describing - but my writing is
not about this product, just some of the design aspects, and the ideal Image
Model Projector has yet to be built.

But I am working on it.

Gary Eickmeier

PS - I can't figure out why I can't get this newsreader to stop assigning my
posts as "News." I have set it up under my name but on this computer it just
keeps posting me as "News." Anyone know why?

  #43   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default Surround Sound

On Monday, November 11, 2013 7:16:58 PM UTC-8, John Stone wrote:
On 11/11/13 6:59 PM, in article ,

"Audio_Empire" wrote:



On Monday, November 11, 2013 10:44:14 AM UTC-8, Scott wrote:


On Monday, November 11, 2013 5:06:12 AM UTC-8, news wrote:




"KH" wrote in message






Completely wrong. If this were the case all speaker designers would have to


do would be to consider . radiation patterns and then apply digital EQ.


Clearly speaker design is not as simple as that. There are all kinds of


audible distortions in speakers beyond frequency response.




That was kind of my point. I just didn't want to get sucked into another


debate over Gary's unorthodox theories, so I just glossed over my response to


his query about why speakers sound as they do with the obvious.




Gary's "theories" around loudspeaker sound align closely with those of Amar

Bose, especially the early MIT research he conducted that ultimately led to

the Bose 901. As to whether or not this is "unorthodox" depends on how you

view that design, as it places the vast majority of its emphasis on

radiation pattern. Mr. Bose himself believed that loudspeaker distortion was

not audible, except under conditions of extreme overload.


Having heard his flagship speakers it does not surprise me that he thought speaker distortion was not audible.

  #44   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
news news is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Surround Sound

"K. B." wrote in message ...

I'm more interested in the objective side of audio
rather than the subjective side.


It seems that (multichannel) DVD-Audio and SACD formats
failed in the marketplace, Blu-ray w/PCM or Dolby TrueHD
(maybe DTS-HD too) is the only widely available option for
getting accurate multichannel audio to consumers.


~~~
Kirk Bayne
alt.video.digital-tv Home Page
http://avdtv.tripod.com/avdtv.htm



I think that DVD-Audio and SACD failed because the manufacturers did not
educate the public as to the advantages of these formats and the fact that
you need to have decent quality equipment; all the way through your system
to hear the sonic improvements that these formats can give you compared to
regular CDs. I know that CD Japan and other sources apparently offer close
to 1000 SACDs or maybe more. Also HDCD was an improvement over standard CD
as well but for some reason Micro$oft purchased that company possibly to
take it out of production it seems, I may be wrong here?

I'm using a Cambridge Audio Universal Blu-ray player that does all of these
formats and I can hear the difference compared to standard CDs, but I know
that a dedicated SACD player from Sony would probably sound even better. I
have heard that a $2000.00 player is in order to really experience the
difference.

Shaun
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FS: SPATIAL SOUND SP-1 SURROUND SOUND PROCESSOR MarkSG Marketplace 0 March 10th 04 07:48 AM
FS: SPATIAL SOUND SP-1 SURROUND SOUND PROCESSOR MarkSG Marketplace 0 February 19th 04 06:16 AM
DVD surround sound normanstrong Audio Opinions 11 January 4th 04 07:23 PM
How to go Surround Sound?? rick donnelly Car Audio 4 December 1st 03 08:40 PM
FA: Rare Spatial Sound SP-1 Surround Sound Processor Mark Glinsky Pro Audio 0 November 29th 03 10:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:16 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"