Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
FS: SPATIAL SOUND SP-1 SURROUND SOUND PROCESSOR | Marketplace | |||
FS: SPATIAL SOUND SP-1 SURROUND SOUND PROCESSOR | Marketplace | |||
DVD surround sound | Audio Opinions | |||
How to go Surround Sound?? | Car Audio | |||
FA: Rare Spatial Sound SP-1 Surround Sound Processor | Pro Audio |