Re: The circle of confusion

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Nov 9, 3:26=A0am, Kalman Rubinson > wrote:

> >Maybe we need Dolby to lay down a loudspeaker spec for stereo sound?
>
> The complication is specifying the room as well as the equipment.
> Without that, equipment specs are woefully inadequate. =A0

Modern DSP technology is already able to fix around 90% of this
problem I believe.
Already cheap A/V receivers available for under $500.00 contain
reasonably effective room and speaker correction chips.

> Oh, btw, I do not believe that the BBC actually manufactured the
> speakers, other than the prototypes. =A0Manufacturing was licensed and
> tightly controlled.

That agrees with my memory. Part of the control specifications was
that if one speaker in a stereo pair failed one should be able to drop
in a randomly selected unit and experience no degradation in the
stereo performance. And that was to be true of units manufactured by
different licensees.

[Kalman Rubinson[_3_]]

On 9 Nov 2009 23:05:23 GMT, Ed Seedhouse > wrote:

>On Nov 9, 3:26=A0am, Kalman Rubinson > wrote:
>
>> >Maybe we need Dolby to lay down a loudspeaker spec for stereo sound?
>>
>> The complication is specifying the room as well as the equipment.
>> Without that, equipment specs are woefully inadequate. =A0
>
>Modern DSP technology is already able to fix around 90% of this
>problem I believe.
>Already cheap A/V receivers available for under $500.00 contain
>reasonably effective room and speaker correction chips.

Yup. What I was suggesting could ride on that. The built-in routines
have a target curve which is flat or some calculated curve based on
assumptions related to movie/theater acoustics. This, clearly, does
not help a lot with music. Adding a target on the distribution
(medium, disc, download or other) to match the playback acoustics to
the studio or concert venue acoustics would serve all.

Kal

[Nickyrash]

;891860']On Nov 9, 3:26=A0am, Kalman Rubinson > wrote:

> >Maybe we need Dolby to lay down a loudspeaker spec for stereo sound?
>
> The complication is specifying the room as well as the equipment.
> Without that, equipment specs are woefully inadequate. =A0

Modern DSP technology is already able to fix around 90% of this
problem I believe.
Already cheap A/V receivers available for under $500.00 contain
reasonably effective room and speaker correction chips.

> Oh, btw, I do not believe that the BBC actually manufactured the
> speakers, other than the prototypes. =A0Manufacturing was licensed and
> tightly controlled.

That agrees with my memory. Part of the control specifications was
that if one speaker in a stereo pair failed one should be able to drop
in a randomly selected unit and experience no degradation in the
stereo performance. And that was to be true of units manufactured by
different licensees.

Thank you very much for the use full information it helped me a lot.

[Kalman Rubinson[_3_]]

On 25 Nov 2009 00:30:51 GMT, ScottW > wrote:

>On Nov 9, 4:07*pm, Kalman Rubinson > wrote:
>> On 9 Nov 2009 23:05:23 GMT, Ed Seedhouse > wrote:
>>
>> >On Nov 9, 3:26=A0am, Kalman Rubinson > wrote:
>>
>> >> >Maybe we need Dolby to lay down a loudspeaker spec for stereo sound?
>>
>> >> The complication is specifying the room as well as the equipment.
>> >> Without that, equipment specs are woefully inadequate. =A0
>>
>> >Modern DSP technology is already able to fix around 90% of this
>> >problem I believe.
>> >Already cheap A/V receivers available for under $500.00 contain
>> >reasonably effective room and speaker correction chips.
>>
>> Yup. *What I was suggesting could ride on that. *The built-in routines
>> have a target curve which is flat or some calculated curve based on
>> assumptions related to movie/theater acoustics. *This, clearly, does
>> not help a lot with music. *Adding a target on the distribution
>> (medium, disc, download or other) to match the playback acoustics to
>> the studio or concert venue acoustics would serve all.
>>
>> Kal
>
> If someone calibrates their room response to a standard....then
>wouldn't it be up to the recording to replicate the venue response?
>
>I don't see why a new target curve is required with each recording.

Mixing/mastering studio acoustics s vary nearly as much as home
systems. In order to make certain that the standard room response
was, in practice, used in the production and to correct for any
disparities, a target curve or shaped noise pulse would allow for
local adjustments.

Kal

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:30:51 -0800, ScottW wrote
(in article >):

> On Nov 9, 4:07=A0pm, Kalman Rubinson > wrote:
>> On 9 Nov 2009 23:05:23 GMT, Ed Seedhouse > wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 9, 3:26=3DA0am, Kalman Rubinson > wrote:
>>
>>>>> Maybe we need Dolby to lay down a loudspeaker spec for stereo sound?
>>
>>>> The complication is specifying the room as well as the equipment.
>>>> Without that, equipment specs are woefully inadequate. =3DA0
>>
>>> Modern DSP technology is already able to fix around 90% of this
>>> problem I believe.
>>> Already cheap A/V receivers available for under $500.00 contain
>>> reasonably effective room and speaker correction chips.
>>
>> Yup. =A0What I was suggesting could ride on that. =A0The built-in routine=
> s
>> have a target curve which is flat or some calculated curve based on
>> assumptions related to movie/theater acoustics. =A0This, clearly, does
>> not help a lot with music. =A0Adding a target on the distribution
>> (medium, disc, download or other) to match the playback acoustics to
>> the studio or concert venue acoustics would serve all.
>>
>> Kal
>
> If someone calibrates their room response to a standard....then
> wouldn't it be up to the recording to replicate the venue response?
>
> I don't see why a new target curve is required with each recording.
>
> ScottW

And that seems to be the problem with some of the ideas for standardization
put forth in this thread. To many people here just don't understand.