Beolab 5

[Gary Eickmeier]

Anyone ever heard or heard about this?

http://www.moultonlabs.com/more/loudspeaker_that_raises_the_bar/

Just curious about your opinions.

Gary Eickmeier

[Mike Clayton[_2_]]

On 2/01/14 7:02 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> Anyone ever heard or heard about this?
>
> http://www.moultonlabs.com/more/loudspeaker_that_raises_the_bar/
>
> Just curious about your opinions.
>
> Gary Eickmeier

I would say they have. The publication date on the article is 2003.

Mike

[Ethan Winer[_5_]]

I heard a pair of these in an untreated room and I was not impressed. The imaging was all over the place and very strange. Perhaps they'd sound better in a treated room, with absorbers at the side-wall and ceiling reflection points.

--Ethan

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Ethan Winer" > wrote in message
...
>I heard a pair of these in an untreated room and I was not impressed. The
>imaging was all over the place and very strange. Perhaps they'd sound
>better in a treated room, with absorbers at the side-wall and ceiling
>reflection points.
>
> --Ethan

They were probably mis-positioned really badly. Anyway, I was just curious
if the tale of their success in monitoring rooms was true. Can't say I have
ever heard them.

Gary Eickmeier

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>"Ethan Winer" > wrote in message
...
>>I heard a pair of these in an untreated room and I was not impressed. The
>>imaging was all over the place and very strange. Perhaps they'd sound
>>better in a treated room, with absorbers at the side-wall and ceiling
>>reflection points.
>
>They were probably mis-positioned really badly. Anyway, I was just curious
>if the tale of their success in monitoring rooms was true. Can't say I have
>ever heard them.

A lot of systems like this have been designed over the years, from the
Ohm Walsh driver to that M-B thing to a raft of acoustic lens devices.
The notion here is that there are two routes to constant directivity:
either make low frequencies directional or make high frequencies
omnidirectional. The first method is problematic, the second one is
much more possible.

You have two issues with these: first of all it's very hard to make
acoustical lens and diffuser systems actually flat. The B&O is probably
about as good as it gets. But secondly, and much more importantly is
that the more energy you pump into the room, the more severe room acoustic
problems become.

My ex's father was a huge fan of the Walsh, but you could hear the stereo
image moving wildly as you moved your head, due to specular reflections from
the sides. He went crazy moving the things around and raising them and
lowering them but didn't have the motivation or ability to fix the room.

Much the same thing can be said about omnidirectional miking techniques;
systems like baffled omnis severely exaggerate room problems. In a good
room they can be amazing, but you can spend a lot of time fixing the room
rather than rolling tape.
--scott

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

[David Gravereaux]

On 01/02/2014 05:47 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:> ...
>
> You have two issues with these: first of all it's very hard to make
> acoustical lens and diffuser systems actually flat.


Being a wave guide, they behave like like a constant directivity horn
falling off @ 3dB/oct in their zone. Correct use of post processing
brings the response equal.

I've heard them, and they kick ass.


> The B&O is probably
> about as good as it gets. But secondly, and much more importantly is
> that the more energy you pump into the room, the more severe room acoustic
> problems become.


^ ditto. The power response is equal in the 180 degree horizontal
plane. In a good LEDE style room the imaging is quite three dimensional
especially noticeable with drums. Though I can't say I've heard them in
a bad room.

--



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvgu unir cevinpl

iEYEARECAAYFAlLGITsACgkQlZadkQh/RmFmRQCg+NIq862kedB0rBn61jVpLiNe
bMQAn1pZkJjFXeAPXZWPd9HVnuU2jmtD
=qZH4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Scott Dorsey]

David Gravereaux > wrote:
>Kludge wrote:
>> The B&O is probably
>> about as good as it gets. But secondly, and much more importantly is
>> that the more energy you pump into the room, the more severe room acous=
>tic
>> problems become.
>
>
>^ ditto. The power response is equal in the 180 degree horizontal
>plane. In a good LEDE style room the imaging is quite three dimensional
>especially noticeable with drums. Though I can't say I've heard them in
>a bad room.

Come to CES, there is no shortage of terrible rooms there!
--scott

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

[nickbatz]

What Gary says about them.

I haven't heard the B&O versions, but I heard prototypes at Dave Moulton's house, and they're the best speakers I've ever heard. The one thing they did best is imaging, in fact that's whey B&O bought the patent.

Side absorption...no. No. NO. That's exactly wrong - in any case, but especially with the acoustic lens.

Side reflections help the imaging, in fact that's why these speakers work so well. Getting rid of them is totally wrong, especially with these speakers.

My first jobs after high school were in stereo shops, and I remember the Ohm Walsh speakers...was it V8? What I remember most about them is that they were sort of muffled. I wish I could think of the tiny speakers that kicked their butts...maybe Celestion? But we used to switch to those after the Ohms and people would be amazed. (Aside: the best speakers we had were these things with chrome sides, made by Gale. Too bad that company isn't around anymore.)

[nickbatz]

Also, I heard them (the prototypes, not the B&Os) in a hotel room at an AES show.

They were amazing there too.

I don't know what Ethan heard, but something was very wrong. The imaging is totally solid with those lenses.

What's really interesting is to listen from behind them. The image is inside out and upside down or something when you do that. But you would know something was different - it's a very dramatic effect, not "maybe they'd sound better in a good room."

[Gary Eickmeier]

I am working on some prototype speakers, along with my partner in the
project Dan Neubecker, engineer and builder, that will take advantage of the
effects you are describing even more than the Beolabs. They will have
variable front driver output in order to balance the direct and reflected
sound to build the image model in your room. They will be the first Image
Model Projectors, using the walls as part of the design.

Gary Eickmeier


"nickbatz" > wrote in message
...
> Also, I heard them (the prototypes, not the B&Os) in a hotel room at an
> AES show.
>
> They were amazing there too.
>
> I don't know what Ethan heard, but something was very wrong. The imaging
> is totally solid with those lenses.
>
> What's really interesting is to listen from behind them. The image is
> inside out and upside down or something when you do that. But you would
> know something was different - it's a very dramatic effect, not "maybe
> they'd sound better in a good room."
>

[William Sommerwerck]

I have long opposed omnidirectional or very-broad-dispersion speakers. * The
imaging should be part of the recording, not something to be provided or
enhanced by bouncing the sound off the walls. This is particularly true for
Ambisonic playback, where imaging is degraded by side reflections.

The quality of the drivers and the crossover is more important than
dispersion. Fidelity is more important than gimmickry -- and that's what
omnidirectionality is -- a gimmick that does nothing to improve the absolute
fidelity of playback. Indeed, it degrades it, because the cost of additional
drivers would be better spent on fewer-but-better drivers.

I remember a very nice man who loved classical music and designed speakers
that were pretty much omnidirectional. They weren't very good. It took him
some years to produce a speaker that was reasonably low in coloration.

* One exception is the "wide-imaging" speakers that were popular 20 years ago.
These used controlled dispersion, rather than promiscuously spreading the
sound throughout the room.

[Gary Eickmeier]

William, what you fail to understand and probably never will is that in the
stereophonic system the sounds and their placement are real and not an
illusion. When both ears are free to hear the total presentation in front
of you, they hear all of the spatial, spectral, and temporal characteristics
of what sources are in front of them. If the sound is coming from a boombox,
then it sounds like a boombox, even if it is in stereo. If the speakers are
soffited into a wall, then it sounds like two little sources in a wall. Same
for in a corner, on stands away from the walls, widely spaced, narrowly
spaced - you can hear all of those qualities in the real sources in front of
you. It behooves you, therefore, to re-learn how to place all of those
sources within your room, as in reconstructing all pertinent sound fields
within your space, which then acts as a surrogate space for the recorded
one.

Place two highly directional sources in front of you, then that is what you
will hear - all of the sound will come from those two points and points
between, with no spatial qualities to speak of. I am very surprised that you
haven't been able to perceive all of that by now. If and when ever your hear
very forward, tight directionality but little spacial quality, direct sound
speakers. When ever you hear some spaciousness from outside the speakers,
that is reflected sound coming from Not mysterious at all.

Gary Eickmeier


"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
>I have long opposed omnidirectional or very-broad-dispersion speakers. *
>The imaging should be part of the recording, not something to be provided
>or enhanced by bouncing the sound off the walls. This is particularly true
>for Ambisonic playback, where imaging is degraded by side reflections.
>
> The quality of the drivers and the crossover is more important than
> dispersion. Fidelity is more important than gimmickry -- and that's what
> omnidirectionality is -- a gimmick that does nothing to improve the
> absolute fidelity of playback. Indeed, it degrades it, because the cost of
> additional drivers would be better spent on fewer-but-better drivers.
>
> I remember a very nice man who loved classical music and designed speakers
> that were pretty much omnidirectional. They weren't very good. It took him
> some years to produce a speaker that was reasonably low in coloration.
>
> * One exception is the "wide-imaging" speakers that were popular 20 years
> ago. These used controlled dispersion, rather than promiscuously spreading
> the sound throughout the room.
>

[nickbatz]

Again +1 to Gary's post.

"I have long opposed omnidirectional or very-broad-dispersion speakers. * The
imaging should be part of the recording, not something to be provided or
enhanced by bouncing the sound off the walls."

Put another way, wide dispersion speakers are not adding an effect (there are no weird phase tricks or anything), they're letting you hear the speakers themselves better so that you can hear what's on the recording.

[Gary Eickmeier]

Well, sorry, I was very sleepy and sent that before it was edited. Sorry for
the whippersnapper comments, but it is frustrating our observations differ.
I know that you are an older man, probably even older than I, and you simply
must know that what you are hearing with loudspeaker stereo is the total
pattern of direct and reflected sounds that occur in your room If you hear
a spaciousness, that comes from the reflected sound from all around the
speakers. If you have very directional speakers, where would any
spaciousness come from?

Gary Eickmeier

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>Well, sorry, I was very sleepy and sent that before it was edited. Sorry for
>the whippersnapper comments, but it is frustrating our observations differ.
>I know that you are an older man, probably even older than I, and you simply
>must know that what you are hearing with loudspeaker stereo is the total
>pattern of direct and reflected sounds that occur in your room If you hear
>a spaciousness, that comes from the reflected sound from all around the
>speakers. If you have very directional speakers, where would any
>spaciousness come from?

It would come from the ambience embedded in the original recording. That is
the whole point of the system.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Tom McCreadie]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

>William, what you fail to understand and probably never will is that in the
>stereophonic system the sounds and their placement are real and not an
>illusion.

Of course they're an illusion - in the original intended sense that, for
example, sounds coming from two physical sources (loudspeakers)., placed 4m.
away at "2 o'clock" and "10 o'clock", can give the illusion that it is sound
coming from a single physical source (clarinet) at "12-30" clock angle. And
moreover, by virtue of the direct/indirect balance, can give the illusion that
the clarinet was located 10m. distant.
>
>Place two highly directional sources in front of you, then that is what you
>will hear - all of the sound will come from those two points and points
>between, with no spatial qualities to speak of. I am very surprised that you
>haven't been able to perceive all of that by now. If and when ever your hear
>very forward, tight directionality but little spacial quality, direct sound
>speakers. When ever you hear some spaciousness from outside the speakers,
>that is reflected sound coming from Not mysterious at all.
>
In a decent classical recording, the ambience reflected from, say, the rear and
side walls of the Concertgebouw is already embedded in the microphone's capture.
It's a shame or a crime that you feel this constant need to paint a moustache on
the Mona Lisa...and always that same, identical moustache on any 'lacking" work
of art, irrespective of its content.

No offence or disrespect intended, Gary, but on reading of your earnest efforts
to bounce sound all over the shop in order to bask in a lush, realistic
'envelopment', I'm reminded of that old tailor's joke:
"Never mind the quality, feel the width!"
__
Tom McCreadie

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>I have long opposed omnidirectional or very-broad-dispersion speakers. * The
>imaging should be part of the recording, not something to be provided or
>enhanced by bouncing the sound off the walls. This is particularly true for
>Ambisonic playback, where imaging is degraded by side reflections.

I don't think omnidirectional speakers are necessarily bad, although they
exaggerate room problems and make a bad room worse (and that causes real
trouble in real world room).

But, I think what is most important in a speaker is flat frequency response
in all directions, and attempts to either widen or narrow radiation patterns
invariably make it more difficult to get flat off-axis response.

Sometimes you can live with that; horns tend to make for a whole set of
severe response issues but the narrow radiation pattern is essential in
large bright rooms. But in a small listening room it's more apt to be
trouble than not.

>The quality of the drivers and the crossover is more important than
>dispersion. Fidelity is more important than gimmickry -- and that's what
>omnidirectionality is -- a gimmick that does nothing to improve the absolute
>fidelity of playback. Indeed, it degrades it, because the cost of additional
>drivers would be better spent on fewer-but-better drivers.

I'd agree with this, but this is not an objection directly to
omnidirectionality per se.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

nickbatz > wrote:
>Again +1 to Gary's post.
>
>"I have long opposed omnidirectional or very-broad-dispersion speakers. * The
>imaging should be part of the recording, not something to be provided or
>enhanced by bouncing the sound off the walls."
>
>Put another way, wide dispersion speakers are not adding an effect (there are no weird phase tricks or anything), they're letting you hear the speakers themselves better so that you can hear what's on the recording.

I'm not sure what you're saying here, nick. Are you arguing in favor or
against wide dispersion?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck > wrote:

>> I have long opposed omnidirectional or very-broad-dispersion speakers.
>> The imaging should be part of the recording, not something to be provided
>> or enhanced by bouncing the sound off the walls. This is particularly true
>> for Ambisonic playback, where imaging is degraded by side reflections.

> I don't think omnidirectional speakers are necessarily bad, although they
> exaggerate room problems and make a bad room worse (and that causes
> real trouble in real world room).

> But, I think what is most important in a speaker is flat frequency response
> in all directions, and attempts to either widen or narrow radiation patterns
> invariably make it more difficult to get flat off-axis response.

This is perhaps the only rational argument //against// controlled-dispersion
speakers. As drivers have improved in power-handling capability, it's possible
to build smaller midranges and tweeters that have wide dispersion. Such a
system is easier to build than one with controlled dispersion, and provides
flatter response over a wider listening area.

>> The quality of the drivers and the crossover is more important than
>> dispersion. Fidelity is more important than gimmickry -- and that's what
>> omnidirectionality is -- a gimmick that does nothing to improve the
>> absolute
>> fidelity of playback. Indeed, it degrades it, because the cost of
>> additional
>> drivers would be better spent on fewer-but-better drivers.

> I'd agree with this, but this is not an objection directly to
> omnidirectionality per se.

Yes, agreed.

It's interesting that QUAD had to change the crossover in their ESL-63-type
speakers for wider treble dispersion. Listeners weren't always happy with the
(intentionally) narrower dispersion of earlier models.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...

William, what you fail to understand and probably never will is that in the
stereophonic system the sounds and their placement are real and not an
illusion. When both ears are free to hear the total presentation in front
of you, they hear all of the spatial, spectral, and temporal characteristics
of what sources are in front of them. If the sound is coming from a boombox,
then it sounds like a boombox, even if it is in stereo. If the speakers are
soffited into a wall, then it sounds like two little sources in a wall. Same
for in a corner, on stands away from the walls, widely spaced, narrowly
spaced - you can hear all of those qualities in the real sources in front of
you. It behooves you, therefore, to re-learn how to place all of those
sources within your room, as in reconstructing all pertinent sound fields
within your space, which then acts as a surrogate space for the recorded
one.

Place two highly directional sources in front of you, then that is what you
will hear - all of the sound will come from those two points and points
between, with no spatial qualities to speak of. I am very surprised that you
haven't been able to perceive all of that by now. If and when ever your hear
very forward, tight directionality but little spacial quality, direct sound
speakers. When ever you hear some spaciousness from outside the speakers,
that is reflected sound coming from Not mysterious at all.


Gary, what you say is so incorrect, so utterly backwards, I don't know where
to begin.

Multi-channel recordings contain directional cues that the brain interprets to
render a spatial image. The wider variety of cues, and the more-accurately
they are rendered, the better the image.

This rendering DOES NOT require assistance from the room. Room reflections can
only degrade it. The proof of this is found in the success of binaural
recording (heard over headphones) and Ambisonic recording (which is harmed by
early reflections).

If a solitary speaker is heard as a narrow, distinct sound source, it's
because it's badly designed. Diffraction from the cabinet edges, and (likely)
panel vibrations provide additional sound sources that help the brain locate
the sound as coming from the speaker -- which is what we //don't// want.

Back in 1980, when I was working part-time at Chestnut Hill Audio in
Philadelphia, the Dahlquist rep came in with a pair of prototype DQ-6
speakers. Jon Dahlquist had discovered -- by accident -- that painting the
cabinet with Nextel so suppressed panel vibrations that all you heard was the
drivers. The result was astounding imaging, far better than anything I'd heard
before or have heard since. I don't remember the recording we played, but
sounds came from behind, beside, and even in front of the speakers, all very
clearly localized.


"It behooves you, therefore, to re-learn how to place all of those sources
within your room, as in reconstructing all pertinent sound fields within
your space, which then acts as a surrogate space for the recorded one."

This belief is not based on any known laws of acoustics. If it were possible,
you would have discovered the principles by now, and have a number of valuable
patents.

You're on a fool's errand.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>>Well, sorry, I was very sleepy and sent that before it was edited. Sorry
>>for
>>the whippersnapper comments, but it is frustrating our observations
>>differ.
>>I know that you are an older man, probably even older than I, and you
>>simply
>>must know that what you are hearing with loudspeaker stereo is the total
>>pattern of direct and reflected sounds that occur in your room If you
>>hear
>>a spaciousness, that comes from the reflected sound from all around the
>>speakers. If you have very directional speakers, where would any
>>spaciousness come from?
>
> It would come from the ambience embedded in the original recording. That
> is
> the whole point of the system.
> --scott

Scott,
Stereo doesn't work by shoving the two channels into your ears and fooling
you into hearing "what is on the recording." That would be the binaural
confusion.

Move your speakers farther apart. Could you hear that? Move them closer
together. Could you hear that change? Put them in a live room. Put them in a
dead room. Could you hear the difference?

If all you hear is what is on the recording, then those changes would make
no difference. But when both ears are free to hear everything that is
happening in the room, then you must physically place all of the sounds that
come from the recording as desired. Most of us realize that we must use at
least two speakers, placed some distance apart, at some distance in front of
us to establish the left to right that is contained in the recording. We
also know that we can't listen anechoically or there would be no
externalization of the imaging outside the head, placing the sound in front
of us, and it would sound horrible because of the lack of any space on
playback.

Rather, we build the sound in a real room in front of us, using the tools of
speaker placement, room acoustics, and radiation pattern to mimic a live
sound field as much as possible. Direct (first arrival) sounds that were
recorded must come from the direct sound of the speakers. Reverberant sounds
in the recording must NOT come from those same directions. So we encourage
some wider, deeper placed additional sources on delay to bring out the
spatial nature of those later arriving sounds that were recorded. I do this
in the most natural way possible, by reflecting some of the sound in
patterns similar to the way it was live. You can also do it with extra
speakers and processing, including surround speakers.

Gary Eickmeier

[Gary Eickmeier]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...


>> But, I think what is most important in a speaker is flat frequency
>> response
>> in all directions, and attempts to either widen or narrow radiation
>> patterns
>> invariably make it more difficult to get flat off-axis response.
>
> This is perhaps the only rational argument //against//
> controlled-dispersion speakers. As drivers have improved in power-handling
> capability, it's possible to build smaller midranges and tweeters that
> have wide dispersion. Such a system is easier to build than one with
> controlled dispersion, and provides flatter response over a wider
> listening area.

You guys aren't making sense. You claim to disagree with me, then you print
this. Obviously if you have a controlled dispersion speaker, a directional
speaker that has less output to the sides and rear than on axis, then you do
not have flat off axis response. Further, if the tweeter has a much narrower
pattern than the midranges, you can hear that as a "honky" coloration due to
the non-flat power response and the calling attention to the narrower driver
like a megaphone. All of these spatial anomolies are audible. If they differ
from the spaital qualities of the live sound that was recorded, you can hear
that. The playback on your new acoustic sources sound different from what
was recorded.
>
> It's interesting that QUAD had to change the crossover in their
> ESL-63-type speakers for wider treble dispersion. Listeners weren't always
> happy with the (intentionally) narrower dispersion of earlier models.

Good observation. Good listeners. Quad operating on wrong stereo theory with
the narrower dispersion models.

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...

> This rendering DOES NOT require assistance from the room. Room reflections
> can only degrade it. The proof of this is found in the success of binaural
> recording (heard over headphones) and Ambisonic recording (which is harmed
> by early reflections).

The binaural confusion.

> Back in 1980, when I was working part-time at Chestnut Hill Audio in
> Philadelphia, the Dahlquist rep came in with a pair of prototype DQ-6
> speakers. Jon Dahlquist had discovered -- by accident -- that painting the
> cabinet with Nextel so suppressed panel vibrations that all you heard was
> the drivers. The result was astounding imaging, far better than anything
> I'd heard before or have heard since. I don't remember the recording we
> played, but sounds came from behind, beside, and even in front of the
> speakers, all very clearly localized.

What were the spatial qualities of the speaker? Direct? Bipole? Dipole?
Omni? Some rear drivers? Do you know what kind of hi freq radiation pattern
it had?

> You're on a fool's errand.

Well then so are MBL, B&O, Quad, Martin Logan, Magneplanar, the Infinity IRS
with its 12 tweeters and open midranges, all omnis, bipoles, dipoles, small
monitors with wide diepersion, DBX with the Soundfield One, and, of course,
Bose who had some success with the concept.

Gary

[William Sommerwerck]

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

>> This rendering DOES NOT require assistance from the room. Room reflections
>> can only degrade it. The proof of this is found in the success of binaural
>> recording (heard over headphones) and Ambisonic recording (which is harmed
>> by early reflections).

> The binaural confusion.

No, the fact that correct imaging requires specific cues.


>> Back in 1980, when I was working part-time at Chestnut Hill Audio in
>> Philadelphia, the Dahlquist rep came in with a pair of prototype DQ-6
>> speakers. Jon Dahlquist had discovered -- by accident -- that painting the
>> cabinet with Nextel so suppressed panel vibrations that all you heard was
>> the drivers. The result was astounding imaging, far better than anything
>> I'd heard before or have heard since. I don't remember the recording we
>> played, but sounds came from behind, beside, and even in front of the
>> speakers, all very clearly localized.

> What were the spatial qualities of the speaker? Direct? Bipole? Dipole?
> Omni? Some rear drivers? Do you know what kind of hi freq radiation
> pattern it had?

Three-way direct radiator (a kind of mini DQ-10). We listened in the main
listening room, which was largish, and on the dead side.


>> You're on a fool's errand.

> Well, then, so are MBL, B&O, QUAD, Martin-Logan, Magneplanar, the Infinity
> IRS with its 12 tweeters and open midranges, all omnis, bipoles, dipoles,
> small monitors with wide dispersion, dbx with the Soundfield One, and, of
> course, Bose who had some success with the concept.

I am reasonably certain that the designers at these companies will immediately
reject your theories.

[William Sommerwerck]

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

>> It's interesting that QUAD had to change the crossover in their ESL-63-type
>> speakers for wider treble dispersion. Listeners weren't
>> always happy with the (intentionally) narrower dispersion of earlier
>> models.

> Good observation. Good listeners. Quad operating on wrong stereo
> theory with the narrower dispersion models.

It wasn't observation -- it was taste.

Bouncing sound off the walls can only degrade imaging -- it can never enhance
it.

[William Sommerwerck]

It's about time I finally shot down Gary's theories once and for all. I hope
he will react to the following as John Logie Baird did when he first saw
electronic television.

Imagine we've been granted permission to record in the Concertgebouw. We make
three recordings -- one Blumlein, one spaced-omni, and one multi-miked.

The Blumlein's imaging uses intensity variations, the spaced-omni works on
arrival-time cues (with a bit of intensity variation), while the final mix of
the multi-miked version will be a hotch-potch of intensity and arrival-time
cues, with the former predominating.

Let's assume there's some "magic" configuration of speakers that will
accurately reproduce the
Concertgebouw's /true/ acoustics for the Blumlein recording.

I have now figuratively backed you to the edge of the cliff, and am about to
push you off.

How can that speaker configuration /possibly/ be correct for a spaced-omni
recording using a completely different type of directional cue?

To put it a different way... These recordings "encode" the hall's acoustics,
and the speaker+room "decode" them to (presumably) accurately reproduce the
acoustics. Well, then... How can a decoding that works for one type of cue
correctly decode a completely different type of cue, any more that a QS
decoder can properly decode an SQ recording?

As for the multi-miked recording... It's an incoherent representation of the
Concertgebouw's acoustics. There is no way you could extract the correct
acoustic patterns from it.

You are living in a technological dream world. Just because you believe
something, doesn't make it so. You have to /prove/ your claims. Have you made
live recordings, then demonstrated that your system correctly reproduces the
original hall ambience (to the extent that it can be judged)? Of course not.

Find a more-productive use of your time.

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>You guys aren't making sense. You claim to disagree with me, then you print
>this.

Most of what you say doesn't make enough sense to disagree or agree with
in any way. Your inability to understand the most basic concepts of
stereophony hamper your ability to make any arguments with regard to
dispersion.

But, let's talk only about dispersion in a mono system, for example,
where imaging is not at issue.

> Obviously if you have a controlled dispersion speaker, a directional
>speaker that has less output to the sides and rear than on axis, then you do
>not have flat off axis response.

Not necessarily at all. In practice this becomes a problem at low
frequencies where it becomes difficult to control dispersion, though,
but in practice the point where that is the case can be lowered down far
enough that it's a non-issue.

> Further, if the tweeter has a much narrower
>pattern than the midranges, you can hear that as a "honky" coloration due to
>the non-flat power response and the calling attention to the narrower driver
>like a megaphone.

No, not at all. If the tweeter is beamy, then the high end will change
with the listening position, but it will not be honky. Honkiness and that
megaphone sound are the result of narrowband resonances. While they are
frequently an unpleasant side effect of horns, they are not the result of
the pattern, they are a symptom of the particular method used to control
the pattern.

>All of these spatial anomolies are audible. If they differ
>from the spaital qualities of the live sound that was recorded, you can hear
>that. The playback on your new acoustic sources sound different from what
>was recorded.

Neither I nor you have talked about a single spatial anomaly in this
message. We have so far talked only about tonal ones. I have given up
attempting to explain spatial perception to you.

>> It's interesting that QUAD had to change the crossover in their
>> ESL-63-type speakers for wider treble dispersion. Listeners weren't always
>> happy with the (intentionally) narrower dispersion of earlier models.
>
>Good observation. Good listeners. Quad operating on wrong stereo theory with
>the narrower dispersion models.

With the ESL-63 it was mostly because the driver area itself was very small
so the pattern at low frequencies was very wide. If the pattern of the
woofer and tweeter match poorly, it can become a real problem. What Quad
did was an attempt to match dispersion and make it more constant with
frequency, and it's easier to make the top end wider than to make the low
end narrower.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Jeff Henig" wrote in message
...

> NexTel paint? What kind of paint is this? I looked it up and found
> some 3M paints that mimic different fabrics like velvet and velour.
> Is that the paint to which you refer?

Yes.

Nextel was developed for solar collectors (such as those for water-heating
systems), to absorb more sunlight. It's also been used on electronic equipment
for cosmetic reasons. Unfortunately, it tends to chip off.

[Ethan Winer[_5_]]

On Sunday, January 12, 2014 12:20:08 PM UTC-5, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> The imaging should be part of the recording, not something to
> be provided or enhanced by bouncing the sound off the walls.

I agree with William and Scott, and this sums it up perfectly. This is also related to the flawed notion that early reflections from the side walls are beneficial. In a normal home-size listening room, reflections from nearby boundaries make a recording sound smaller, not larger. Recordings contain the reverb and ambience from the original venue (concert hall), or artificial reverb added electronically (pop music). When early reflections from a room are allowed, they drown out the larger sounding reverb embedded in the recording. This makes playback sound narrower as well as smaller.

--Ethan

[S. King]

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 10:05:55 -0500, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>>>Well, sorry, I was very sleepy and sent that before it was edited.
>>>Sorry for the whippersnapper comments, but it is frustrating our
>>>observations differ.
>>>I know that you are an older man, probably even older than I, and you
>>>simply must know that what you are hearing with loudspeaker stereo is
>>>the total pattern of direct and reflected sounds that occur in your
>>>room If you hear a spaciousness, that comes from the reflected sound
>>>from all around the speakers. If you have very directional speakers,
>>>where would any spaciousness come from?
>>
>> It would come from the ambience embedded in the original recording.
>> That is the whole point of the system.
>> --scott
>
> Scott,
> Stereo doesn't work by shoving the two channels into your ears and
> fooling you into hearing "what is on the recording." That would be the
> binaural confusion.
>
> Move your speakers farther apart. Could you hear that? Move them closer
> together. Could you hear that change? Put them in a live room. Put them
> in a dead room. Could you hear the difference?
>
> If all you hear is what is on the recording, then those changes would
> make no difference. But when both ears are free to hear everything that
> is happening in the room, then you must physically place all of the
> sounds that come from the recording as desired. Most of us realize that
> we must use at least two speakers, placed some distance apart, at some
> distance in front of us to establish the left to right that is contained
> in the recording. We also know that we can't listen anechoically or
> there would be no externalization of the imaging outside the head,
> placing the sound in front of us, and it would sound horrible because of
> the lack of any space on playback.
>
> Rather, we build the sound in a real room in front of us, using the
> tools of speaker placement, room acoustics, and radiation pattern to
> mimic a live sound field as much as possible. Direct (first arrival)
> sounds that were recorded must come from the direct sound of the
> speakers. Reverberant sounds in the recording must NOT come from those
> same directions. So we encourage some wider, deeper placed additional
> sources on delay to bring out the spatial nature of those later arriving
> sounds that were recorded. I do this in the most natural way possible,
> by reflecting some of the sound in patterns similar to the way it was
> live. You can also do it with extra speakers and processing, including
> surround speakers.
>
> Gary Eickmeier

I'm wondering how you believe that your, I assume, normal sized listening
room with its very short reverberation time can in any way simulate the
reverb time of, for instance the Concertgebouw, with a volume of 741,800
cubic feet and a reverb time of 2.2 seconds with audience. Now, if you
were to say "I like what I hear in my room," I'd buy that.

Steve King

[William Sommerwerck]

"S. King" wrote in message ...

> I'm wondering how you believe that your, I assume, normal sized listening
> room with its very short reverberation time can in any way simulate the
> reverb time of, for instance the Concertgebouw, with a volume of 741,800
> cubic feet and a reverb time of 2.2 seconds with audience. Now, if you
> were to say "I like what I hear in my room," I'd buy that.

What Gary is claiming is that the appropriate interaction of the speakers with
the room acoustics will help us better hear the ambience in the recording --
which might be true. But his claim (as I understand it) that there is some
acoustic formula that specifies a speaker design and its placement that will
accurately //reveal// the original acoustics of the recording venue strikes me
as... well, hogwash.

The issue is largely moot, anyway. Find a Yamaha or JVC hall synthesizer on
eBay, and set it to mimic the ambience of the recording. Which takes all of
about 15 seconds.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

> Well then so are MBL, B&O, Quad, Martin Logan, Magneplanar, the
> Infinity IRS with its 12 tweeters and open midranges, all omnis,
> bipoles, dipoles, small monitors with wide diepersion, DBX with the
> Soundfield One, and, of course, Bose who had some success with the
> concept.

The guys I know who own ESL 63 AND record classical music have baffles
behind them or on the wall behind them to gobble up rear radiation and have
them in purpose built iron stands that add stiffness to their frame as well
as elevate them so that the panels are vertical.

Interestingly the KEF Q15 seems to me be quite close to them in tonal
balance and way of working in a listening room, albeit not quite as clear. I
think compression drivers can be just as clear in the midrange, but that is
another discussion. It could be a good addition to a monitoring setup.

You need to read your Harwood Gary, he wrote a very interesting paper about
why loudspeakers sound like they do and the importance of a constant
directivity index and deviations therefrom causing coloration at x-over
frequencies,
it was in Wireless World sometime between ... sheesh 1976 to 1978, perhaps
it is on the web somewhere.

> Gary

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[nickbatz]

> I'm not sure what you're saying here, nick. Are you arguing in favor or
>
> against wide dispersion?
>


Definitely for it!

[nickbatz]

William, you really have to listen to the Beolabs. You may not change your mind about the speakers you like, but I'm convinced you'll change your mind about the reason you like them!

Also, only room reflections from the same angle as the sound from the speakers - i.e. the front - will comb filter. The ones from the sides actually help with the imaging. That's not true of mics, but it is true of ears. And it's why the acoustic lens works so well.

[nickbatz]

I had another thought.

One of the interesting things about speakers with the acoustic lens is that you don't hear the sound coming from the speakers, you hear it from somewhere behind them, probably the front of the room. You can look at the speakers, and they completely disappear.

What I don't know is if positioning them too close to the front wall screws up the whole set-up. That could be what Ethan heard.

But Ethan, when you say that stuff about a "flawed notion"...okay, I'm just going to say it: it's simply ********. Yes, you're quoting the conventional wisdom, but it still happens to be complete bull**** in both theory and reality. It just ain't like that.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

nickbatz wrote:

> I had another thought.

> One of the interesting things about speakers with the acoustic lens
> is that you don't hear the sound coming from the speakers, you hear
> it from somewhere behind them, probably the front of the room. You
> can look at the speakers, and they completely disappear.

It is not "a quality loudspeaker" if that doesn't happen, but it is also
about the rest of the system and most certainly about the recording. In my
experience it is about temporal precision, and acoustic lenses are
problematic in that regard because they work by providing multiple pathways
for the audio, something that leads to unavoidable obfuscation of the actual
information in it.

> What I don't know is if positioning them too close to the front wall
> screws up the whole set-up. That could be what Ethan heard.

> But Ethan, when you say that stuff about a "flawed notion"...okay,
> I'm just going to say it: it's simply ********. Yes, you're quoting
> the conventional wisdom, but it still happens to be complete bull****
> in both theory and reality. It just ain't like that.

Do you have any concert experience, real concerts, and sound recording
experience? - both are in my opinion relevant for the evaluation of the
images rendered in sound reproduction.

We then also need to see the context, because wide dispersion loudspeakers
can provide a very plesant distribution of sound in the room they are in and
if it is not a listening room and they are not a listening tool, then they
can indeed be relevant.

Carlsson, Lowther ACE and Bose all made/make audio sources that work well as
a room decorators tool and to some extent also very good musicians playback
tools because of the lack of listener location requirements. They have their
place, just do not call them monitors, because they are not, they do not
tell it as it is, they provide a pleasing rendition.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[William Sommerwerck]

"nickbatz" wrote in message
...

> William, you really have to listen to the Beolabs. You may not
> change your mind about the speakers you like, but I'm convinced
> you'll change your mind about the reason you like them!

Unlikely.

The "sound" of planar drivers (Magnepan excepted -- it isn't a true planar
speaker) is the result of low unit mass -- not wall reflections. I will go
back to conventional speakers when the laws of physics are repealed.


> Also, only room reflections from the same angle as the sound
> from the speakers -- ie, the front -- will comb filter.

I did some experiments a long time ago that showed it's more complex than
that -- but I don't have time to discuss them right now.


> The ones from the sides actually help with the imaging. That's not
> true of mics, but it is true of ears. And it's why the acoustic lens
> works so well.

What is the experimental basis for this claim?

[Scott Dorsey]

Peter Larsen > wrote:
>Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
>> Well then so are MBL, B&O, Quad, Martin Logan, Magneplanar, the
>> Infinity IRS with its 12 tweeters and open midranges, all omnis,
>> bipoles, dipoles, small monitors with wide diepersion, DBX with the
>> Soundfield One, and, of course, Bose who had some success with the
>> concept.
>
>The guys I know who own ESL 63 AND record classical music have baffles
>behind them or on the wall behind them to gobble up rear radiation and have
>them in purpose built iron stands that add stiffness to their frame as well
>as elevate them so that the panels are vertical.

The problem with this is that those baffles are only absorptive at higher
frequencies, and that can make for some issues if you aren't very careful
about setup. This can work really well, but it can also be a problem
because you're still going to have a low frequency rear lobe and it's going
to be interacting with the rear wall.

>Interestingly the KEF Q15 seems to me be quite close to them in tonal
>balance and way of working in a listening room, albeit not quite as clear. I
>think compression drivers can be just as clear in the midrange, but that is
>another discussion. It could be a good addition to a monitoring setup.

I haven't worked on those but I have worked on earlier KEFs (and of course
on the LS 3/5a) and found them very easy to mix on. The detail on the top
end of the ESLs is amazing, though. They are detailed without being bright
and I attribute that to very smooth off-axis response on the top octave.

>You need to read your Harwood Gary, he wrote a very interesting paper about
>why loudspeakers sound like they do and the importance of a constant
>directivity index and deviations therefrom causing coloration at x-over
>frequencies,
> it was in Wireless World sometime between ... sheesh 1976 to 1978, perhaps
>it is on the web somewhere.

I'd love to see a citation on that. There was so much great stuff in Wireless
World that never made it over to this side of the water.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

nickbatz > wrote:
>> I'm not sure what you're saying here, nick. Are you arguing in favor or
>>
>> against wide dispersion?
>
>
>Definitely for it!

You can make good arguments for it, but it's hard to make the dispersion
constant with frequency and I think that's more important than the pattern
width itself.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

nickbatz > wrote:
>I had another thought.
>
>One of the interesting things about speakers with the acoustic lens is that=
> you don't hear the sound coming from the speakers, you hear it from somewh=
>ere behind them, probably the front of the room. You can look at the speake=
>rs, and they completely disappear.

This is normal, though. This is a reasonable expectation for any speaker
system. If the sound is coming from the speakers, and the soundstage does
not extend well beyond the edges of the speakers, something is terribly wrong.

>What I don't know is if positioning them too close to the front wall screws=
> up the whole set-up. That could be what Ethan heard.

The change in the close-in reflections probably won't be audible, but the
change in the comb filtering will be very very audible. Positioning of any
speaker system is critical and a properly set-up room is critical (and becomes
even more so when the pattern is wider).

>But Ethan, when you say that stuff about a "flawed notion"...okay, I'm just=
> going to say it: it's simply ********. Yes, you're quoting the conventiona=
>l wisdom, but it still happens to be complete bull**** in both theory and r=
>eality. It just ain't like that.

The way I think about it, dispersion really is one of the least important
features of a monitor speaker. What you need is low distortion, flat response,
and a pattern that is very constant with frequency. If you get that by way of
using a wide dispersion system, that's fine. If you get it by way of using a
narrow dispersion system, that's fine too.

With wide dispersion systems it is very very hard to design them so that
the drivers are flat and even at high frequencies. With narrow dispersion
systems it is very very hard to design them so the low frequency pattern
matches the high frequency pattern. Either one has pitfalls.

In the end, speakers just aren't any good. Only live music is any good at all.
--scott

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

[Gary Eickmeier]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "S. King" wrote in message ...
>
>> I'm wondering how you believe that your, I assume, normal sized listening
>> room with its very short reverberation time can in any way simulate the
>> reverb time of, for instance the Concertgebouw, with a volume of 741,800
>> cubic feet and a reverb time of 2.2 seconds with audience. Now, if you
>> were to say "I like what I hear in my room," I'd buy that.
>
> What Gary is claiming is that the appropriate interaction of the speakers
> with the room acoustics will help us better hear the ambience in the
> recording -- which might be true. But his claim (as I understand it) that
> there is some acoustic formula that specifies a speaker design and its
> placement that will accurately //reveal// the original acoustics of the
> recording venue strikes me as... well, hogwash.
>
> The issue is largely moot, anyway. Find a Yamaha or JVC hall synthesizer
> on eBay, and set it to mimic the ambience of the recording. Which takes
> all of about 15 seconds.

In addition to the binaural confusion there is some confusion between
"apatial" and "temporal." It is necessary to thoroughly distinguish between
these terms. Used loosely, they just mean the same thing, room sound.
Reflections are delayed versions of the main sound, it's all the same
phenomenon. But no.

Spatial refers to the directions, or angles of incidence, of the various
sounds arriving at the listener. Side wall reflections, for example, are
what give the impression of spaciousness and give the good halls their
characteristic sound. Those directions of incidence must be physically
reconstructed on playback. They do not happen at all in mono. In stereo, you
get a hint of it in just normal two channel with ordinary direct sound
speakers. But unless you use some wide dispersion or omni speakers placed
away from the walls in a normally reflective room, you will not get those
spatial effects that may have been recorded to come from any wider than the
separation of the speakers.

Temporal is the time between reflectons and the reverberation time. I said
time. That part of the reverberant field, if it has been naturally recorded,
is contained in the recording for all types of speakers. It does not
require, and I do not advocate for, any additional reverb added by fancy
receivers that try to simulate various spaces. William's processor is
attempting to address the temporal, but does nothing for the spatial - do
you understand the difference now - unless he does something to make it
come - I mean really come - from different directions thatn the direct
sound.

Doing this by a single reflection from widely spaced walls on playback does
not "muddy" anything or create any false "echoes" or any of a number of
horror stories that you have been told or imagined in your own mind about
it. The only audible effect is to replicate the three dimensional sound
field that is contained in the recording and that you are entitled to hear.

So - if something was recorded in a very dry room with little reverb, or if
it was from the Concertgebeow or Boston Symphony Hall or whatever, you will
hear exactly and only that when you play it back. But the people who have
speakers and rooms with good spatial qualities will get those sounds to come
from more correct spatial directions.

Gary Eickmeier

[Gary Eickmeier]

nickbatz wrote:
> I had another thought.
>
> One of the interesting things about speakers with the acoustic lens
> is that you don't hear the sound coming from the speakers, you hear
> it from somewhere behind them, probably the front of the room. You
> can look at the speakers, and they completely disappear.
>
> What I don't know is if positioning them too close to the front wall
> screws up the whole set-up. That could be what Ethan heard.
>
> But Ethan, when you say that stuff about a "flawed notion"...okay,
> I'm just going to say it: it's simply ********. Yes, you're quoting
> the conventional wisdom, but it still happens to be complete bull****
> in both theory and reality. It just ain't like that.

Nick yes, that is one of the features of incorporating reflected sound into
the playback. There is an image shift phenomenon occuring in which the
imaging undergoes a slight shift toward the reflected sound if the
reflections are strong enough and of the same frequency response as the
direct sound. This is also aided by your listening position backing off from
the speakers and diminishing the direct sound more than the reflected. This
is a most wonderful aspect of good stereo and must be experienced to
understand.

If you place the speakers too close to the front wall, you diminish the
depth of image. If you mistakenly place them too wide apart, you are in
danger of decreasing the width of the first reflections from the side walls,
having the opposite effect and narrowing rather than widening the
soundstage. Also note that if you place the main stereo speakers too close
to walls you will get a "clustering" or bunching of virtual images that
tends to pull the center imaging to the sides resulting in a hole in the
middle, vagueness, or "wandering" of centreal images.

This stuff is all part of a larger stereo theory that incorporates the room
and reflected sound for the first time. I wrote the paper in 1989. It is
called An Image Model Theory for Stereophonic Sound. Dave Moulton met me
before I presented it with some words of encouragement and suggestions. My
ideas are similar to his, and to Siegfried Linkwitz's and the Bose research
in the 901 project and many of his students, including Mark Davis with the
Soundfield One speaker. I am working on a new prototype speaker that
incorporates a shaped reflected sound component that is greater than the
direct sound output and is designed to use the walls as part of the total
soundstage reconstruction. It does this by projecting most of its output
against the walls in a specific pattern that brings out the spatial
qualities in the recording. It will be the first Image Model Projector,
rather than just a direct radiator.

This is not some sort of bogus ad copy or salesmanship. The speaker will not
be manufactured by me and the technology will be available to any and all
who want to help develop the concepts. We have been operating on incorrect
or at least incomplete stereo theory for some 80 to 100 years now, and I
need all the help I can get.

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> In the end, speakers just aren't any good. Only live music is any
> good at all. --scott

Pity the live sound field. It has radiation patterns going in every which
way, bouncing off walls, ceiling, floors, and all objects anywhere in the
room. This is the spatial nature of live sound, that it comes from a very
small amount of direct sound, then undergoes so many reflections before you
hear it you have to wonder how you can localize anything or keep all of
those reflections and comb filtering from ruining your appreciation of the
sound of those instruments.

Well, it is only through those reflections and those spatial patterns that
you receive any of those wonderful sounds that make a great hall great and
live music sound like it does. There is no comb filtering, there is no
ruining of anything, and in fact localization is better in a room than
anechoically or outdoors because of those reflections.

The instruments output their sound at various frequencies in various
directions and patterns, and it is only though the reverberant field that
the total sound power output of the instruments can be heard. The multiple
patterns of the reflections help us to localize the sources in space much
better in a room. The spatially arrayed, temporally delayed reflected images
of the sources gives us the impression of a 3 dimensional space that makes
the total sound field much more interesting and "musicao" to our ears.

If these characteristics of live sound are not reconstructed on playback the
result will sound different from live sound. The recording and reproduction
process changes the spatial nature of the sound from what it was live to
what it is in your speaker and room playback image model. What we need to be
studying about the process is that model, not the specs of the direct sound
that is emitted from the front of the speakers in comparison to what went
into the microphone.

William is fond of the Ambisonics system, which is an attempt at least to
get the spatial aspect more correct than two channel stereo. A lot of us
incorporate surround sound on playback for similar reasons.

We do NOT want to be listening to the direct field only from two point
sources in front of us in a dead room.

Gary Eickmeier

[Gary Eickmeier]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Peter Larsen > wrote:


>> You need to read your Harwood Gary, he wrote a very interesting
>> paper about why loudspeakers sound like they do and the importance
>> of a constant directivity index and deviations therefrom causing
>> coloration at x-over frequencies,
>> it was in Wireless World sometime between ... sheesh 1976 to 1978,
>> perhaps it is on the web somewhere.
>
> I'd love to see a citation on that. There was so much great stuff in
> Wireless World that never made it over to this side of the water.
> --scott

A constant directivity index, but which one? These guys seem to just assume
that direct is the only way to go, and so the difference in the directivity
between the tweeter and the rest of the drivers is the problem, so what we
need to do is make them all the same - forward!

It would never occur to them to attain the constant directivity index by
making them all omni. My speaker will have a negative diretivity index, most
of the sound going in the reflected direction.

Study live sound - every aspect of it, every spatial, spectral, and temporal
characteristic of it, study it until your eyes and ears are bleeding and
your brain has had enough, then study it some more. THAT is what we are
trying to reproduce.

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

Jeff Henig wrote:
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote:
>> "Jeff Henig" wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> NexTel paint? What kind of paint is this? I looked it up and found
>>> some 3M paints that mimic different fabrics like velvet and velour.
>>> Is that the paint to which you refer?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> Nextel was developed for solar collectors (such as those for
>> water-heating systems), to absorb more sunlight. It's also been used
>> on electronic equipment for cosmetic reasons. Unfortunately, it
>> tends to chip off.

You can paint it, put it on stands, nail it to the wall, put weights on it,
stand on your head and whistle Dixie, but what you will hear from any
speaker is well known. Mark Davis tells us that what is audible about
loudspeakers, what we hear, is the frequency response and radiation pattern.
I would add that radiation pattern is not audible per se except as it
affects the reflecting surfaces around the speakers. So I would add that
what we hear are The Big Three of radiation pattern, speaker positioning,
and the acoustics of the room surfaces.

THAT is what we hear with any and all speakers that we have ever heard in
our lifetimes. I wonder if we might be able to compare that to the image
model of the live sound and improve reproduction?

Gary Eickmeier

[Gary Eickmeier]

Ethan Winer wrote:
> On Sunday, January 12, 2014 12:20:08 PM UTC-5, William Sommerwerck
> wrote:
>> The imaging should be part of the recording, not something to
>> be provided or enhanced by bouncing the sound off the walls.
>
> I agree with William and Scott, and this sums it up perfectly. This
> is also related to the flawed notion that early reflections from the
> side walls are beneficial. In a normal home-size listening room,
> reflections from nearby boundaries make a recording sound smaller,
> not larger. Recordings contain the reverb and ambience from the
> original venue (concert hall), or artificial reverb added
> electronically (pop music). When early reflections from a room are
> allowed, they drown out the larger sounding reverb embedded in the
> recording. This makes playback sound narrower as well as smaller.
>
> --Ethan

So let's see what we have learned here - a combination of direct and
reflected sound from much wider area than the speakers alone will sound
narrower than the sound from the speakers only, because what was recorded
was a lot wider than my room. Ok so far? And to hear this recorded wideness,
how stereo works is that the sound goes from the speakers right into each
ear, fooling your brain into hearing the much larger space. Is that it?

The binaural confusion.

I've got to get to work now. Will get back to William later.

Gary

[William Sommerwerck]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...

> William's processor is attempting to address the temporal,
> but does nothing for the spatial - do you understand the
> difference now -- unless he does something to make it come --
> I mean really come -- from different directions thatn the direct sound.

Well, these devices do -- through four speakers, to the sides and rear of the
listening area. Are you that unfamiliar with how they work?


> So - if something was recorded in a very dry room with little reverb,
> or if it was from the Concertgebeow or Boston Symphony Hall or
> whatever, you will hear exactly and only that when you play it back.
> But the people who have speakers and rooms with good spatial
> qualities will get those sounds to come from more correct spatial
> directions.

I don't believe that -- PROVE IT.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

I haven't worked on those but I have worked on earlier KEFs (and of course
on the LS 3/5a) and found them very easy to mix on. The detail on the top
end of the ESLs is amazing, though. They are detailed without being bright
and I attribute that to very smooth off-axis response on the top octave.

No. It's because the diaphragm has low mass compared to the air load it's
driving.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...

> You can paint it, put it on stands, nail it to the wall, put weights on it,
> stand on your head and whistle Dixie, but what you will hear from any
> speaker is well known.

Were you present at this demonstration? No?


Mark Davis tells us that what is audible about
loudspeakers, what we hear, is the frequency response and radiation pattern.
I would add that radiation pattern is not audible per se except as it
affects the reflecting surfaces around the speakers. So I would add that
what we hear are The Big Three of radiation pattern, speaker positioning,
and the acoustics of the room surfaces.

Cabinet diffraction and panel radiation have a significant effect on radiation
pattern.


THAT is what we hear with any and all speakers that we have ever heard in
our lifetimes. I wonder if we might be able to compare that to the image
model of the live sound and improve reproduction?

PROVE IT!

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
>
>I haven't worked on those but I have worked on earlier KEFs (and of course
>on the LS 3/5a) and found them very easy to mix on. The detail on the top
>end of the ESLs is amazing, though. They are detailed without being bright
>and I attribute that to very smooth off-axis response on the top octave.
>
>No. It's because the diaphragm has low mass compared to the air load it's
>driving.

AND... what is the result of that low mass?

It's not just low mass either, but that's an important part of it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Gary Eickmeier]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> It's about time I finally shot down Gary's theories once and for all. I
> hope he will react to the following as John Logie Baird did when he first
> saw electronic television.
>
> Imagine we've been granted permission to record in the Concertgebouw. We
> make three recordings -- one Blumlein, one spaced-omni, and one
> multi-miked.
>
> The Blumlein's imaging uses intensity variations, the spaced-omni works on
> arrival-time cues (with a bit of intensity variation), while the final mix
> of the multi-miked version will be a hotch-potch of intensity and
> arrival-time cues, with the former predominating.
>
> Let's assume there's some "magic" configuration of speakers that will
> accurately reproduce the
> Concertgebouw's /true/ acoustics for the Blumlein recording.
>
> I have now figuratively backed you to the edge of the cliff, and am about
> to push you off.
>
> How can that speaker configuration /possibly/ be correct for a spaced-omni
> recording using a completely different type of directional cue?
>
> To put it a different way... These recordings "encode" the hall's
> acoustics, and the speaker+room "decode" them to (presumably) accurately
> reproduce the acoustics. Well, then... How can a decoding that works for
> one type of cue correctly decode a completely different type of cue, any
> more that a QS decoder can properly decode an SQ recording?
>
> As for the multi-miked recording... It's an incoherent representation of
> the Concertgebouw's acoustics. There is no way you could extract the
> correct acoustic patterns from it.
>
> You are living in a technological dream world. Just because you believe
> something, doesn't make it so. You have to /prove/ your claims. Have you
> made live recordings, then demonstrated that your system correctly
> reproduces the original hall ambience (to the extent that it can be
> judged)? Of course not.
>
> Find a more-productive use of your time.

William - and all -

It grieves me to have to get so basic with you or anyone else here, but that
indeed seems to be the whole problem. You may not have thought about this to
the extent that I have, or it may be the fault of all of the textbooks and
the magazines about what stereo is, and is not.

No Virginia, there is no Santa Claus. Get over it. Just kidding, but the
point is no, you cannot make a recording of the Concertgebouw and reproduce
it in your home - even if you know how to spell it...

Number one, the central recording problem, you have to run the sound through
two rooms before you hear it. Number two, you cannot make a small room sound
like a larger room by playing a recording of the larger room inside it. The
audiophile fantasy is that a recording is this "picture" of another acoustic
space and if and when the chain gets accurate enough, you can just play that
picture in front of you like a big cinemascope movie and you will "hear" the
other space. But no, it wasn't recorded that way - from a position in the
audience - and that is not the technology that can do such a thing.

My first statement is that the recording is not such a hologram of another
space and time, it is a NEW work of art, sometimes based on an original and
sometimes just made up by the producer. Scott or anyone here can tell you
that the building of a recording that sounds good is an art, not a science,
and can be done any number of ways. We may have a stereo pair on an
orchestra at the Concertgebouw or we may have that plus some extra ones on
the piano and the harp and the singers and maybe even some accent mikes to
the sides like John Eargle used for ambience. It may be a pop pure
multi-miked masterpiece that never was played together all at once, or that
was made by a lone worker on a synth in his basement. Doesn't matter, it is
not anything that was made from the perspective that you will have on it
when you play it in your room, unless you want to be inside the lid of a
grand piano or in the face of the vocalist or smelling the drummer's feet.
The piano, the singer, and the drum kit only sound like where you hear them
because you have placed them there in your room and then stood back or sat
down some distance away to listen to some sempblance of a stereo
pesentation.

But rather than get into the difference between stereo and binaural and Stan
Lip****z's article (Are the Purists Wrong) and why we are not "encoding" The
Big Picture, let me just relate my view of what we ARE doing, and what is
possible - "how it is" rather than why it isn't.

William Snow said many years ago that the binaural system is intended to
transport the listener to another acoustic space, but the stereophonic
system is meant to transport the sound to the listener's room. That doesn't
mean that your room can't be made to sound a little like the Concertgebouw,
just that it can't sound exactly like the larger space, but it does behoove
you to learn how to present the various parts of the recorded sound from
points within your space that make it more realistic, because whatever the
spatial characteristics of your room and speakers, that is what you will be
hearing and using to translate the recorded sound into the surrogate source
right there, for your natural hearing to witness in all respects. You will
hear a smaller version of the original, but it will take on some of the
characteristics of the recorded space to the extent that you may get the
suspension of disbelief. Smaller ensembles such as a piano trio can become
absolutely indistinguishable from live, playing right there in your room,
because if they were recorded with less original room sound then your room
will take over and they will be present in your room, as Snow suggests.

Binaural is a whole nuther deal. It does work like the audiophiles think, by
sticking the two channels directly into your ears and hopefully causing you
to experience the sound that impinged upon the dummy head in the recording
space. You will be THERE - except for a few lousy technical problems like on
headphone the orchestra moves when you turn your head, and
in-head-locatedness and different pinnae and ear response and all that.
Loudspeaker binaural works like audiophiles think stereo works, by
eliminating interaural crosstalk and sticking each channel into your ears
and fooling you into hearing this vast sonic landscape of maybe 180° in
front of you. In this case you just might want to deaden the room a little
so that the recorded space dominates, but not too much or else there can be
that IHL effect even on speakers, because our ears need a little bit of a
real acoustic to "anchor" a sound better than if it were anechoic. Listeners
in an anechoic chamber report this in head effect even from loudspeakers not
playing binaural.

There are many other schemes that have been tried, no need to go through
them all, just need to remember in all cases that whenever your ears are
free to hear all sounds in front of and around you, then the idea is to
place the sound from the real directions desired to be perceived. If you
have a system with direct sensory input, like Carver Sonic Holography or
something that attempts crosstalk elimination, then a deader room and
directional speakers are OK but such systems do have limitations. And
stereophonic recordings should not be played in binaural and vice versa
because the perspective will be all wrong.

And in conclusion - yay! - let's take your favorite, Ambisonics and examine
it. Yes, I have heard Ambisonics with Mike Skeet in England and a circuit
board that I bought. But anyway, on a theoretical level, I think you can
expect a good surround sound effect but there aren't quite enough speakers
and channels to do it up right, so you can expect to still be depending on
the real room to help out with a realistic placement of ambient sounds.
Let's call it a halfway house between binaural and stereo, or maybe between
the Archimedes project and two speaker stereo or 5.1 surround sound.

OK, please tell me how overboard I have gone from what you already know, but
I am just sitting here at the office and letting it rip. Most important to
correct stereo theory to divorce it from binaural in order to make some
progress in researching how it really does work, by placing real sounds in
your room around you. We need to learn how to do radiation patterns, speaker
placement, and room acoustics to make the real model work, not delude
ourselves into thinking that it is all caused by the direct sound from those
two boxes.

Gary

[nickbatz]

Okay Gary, then that explains why you understand what I'm saying better than I do. :)

Peter and Scott, you have to hear speakers that use these actual lenses to understand what I'm saying about the speakers disappearing. You look at the speakers and not believe that the sound is coming from them. The Bose 901s, even Ohm Walsh speakers, whatever are quite different.

But I do agree 100% with one thing Peter says: like any speakers, or more than with almost any speakers, these are another reference. It's not the same thing as what we're used to, and of course that makes them a different kind of tool. (My UREI 809As are terrible, and their positions in my room are totally suboptimal [out of necessity], but I still really like them for what they do well!)

Gary wrote:

>We do NOT want to be listening to the direct field only from two point
>sources in front of us in a dead room.

Hear hear. The sound from the speakers is not "the direct sound" unless you're playing a dry synth through it.

[nickbatz]

By the way, I've also enjoyed listening in some rooms that have been "treated" the conventional "imaginary mirror on the wall" way. It's an interesting sound that works well for pop, although concert music doesn't sound right to me in those rooms.

A good friend of mine went to a lot of trouble and expense putting up stuff all over the place to "tune" his room so it's flat at the listening position. It sounds impressive in its way.

But just in its way. I wouldn't do that, and contrary to the conventional wisdom it certainly doesn't make sense for the reason so many people think it does.

[Tom McCreadie]

On 14 Jan 2014 08:46:49 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Peter Larsen wrote:
>>
>>You need to read your Harwood Gary, he wrote a very interesting paper about
>>why loudspeakers sound like they do and the importance of a constant
>>directivity index and deviations therefrom causing coloration at x-over
>>frequencies,
>> it was in Wireless World sometime between ... sheesh 1976 to 1978, perhaps
>>it is on the web somewhere.
>
>I'd love to see a citation on that. There was so much great stuff in Wireless
>World that never made it over to this side of the water.

It's probably either:

1. his 1968 WW article: "New B.B.C. Monitoring Loudspeaker"

a pdf scan of that article can be is available from:
<http://www.keith-snook.info/wireless-world-magazine/wireless-world-articles.html>
and also via the Harbeth Users Forum - if you're qualified to log in
<http://www.harbeth.co.uk/usergroup/showthread.php?1796-quot-New-B-B-C-Monitoring-Loudspeaker-quot-(Harwood-1968-Wireless-World-magazine)>

or
2. his July 1968 WW article:
"Stereophonic Image Sharpness ~ Results of experiments to determine how the
width of a sound image is related to... " (pdf via first link above)
--
Tom McCreadie

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:

> William, what you fail to understand and probably never will is that in the
> stereophonic system the sounds and their placement are real and not an
> illusion.

The sound is a real sound, of course, The illusion to which William
refers is that said sound is the sound of the source. It is not, and
rather obviously not.

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

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:

> It grieves me to have to get so basic with you or anyone else here, but that
> indeed seems to be the whole problem. You may not have thought about this to
> the extent that I have, or it may be the fault of all of the textbooks and
> the magazines about what stereo is, and is not.

Did your mama teach you hubris or do you take to it naturally? Of
course, only you, of all acousticians in the world, know what's really
up. Except you're not an acoustician, right?

I return to my earlier view that you cannot learn, because you already
know it all. More than the sound from a speaker is illusory here.

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

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "nickbatz" wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> We do NOT want to be listening to the direct field only from
>>> two point sources in front of us in a dead room.
>
> Ignoring the fact that no listening room is altogether dead -- why is
> that so wrong?
>
> You are falling back on the argument that the room is "supposed" to do
> something to enhance the ambient component of the sound, without PROVING
> the truth of the argument.


Should we not look at it as "Vanishingly few rooms are anechoic
chambers. Speaker should be designed therefore not to be at their
best in an anechoic chamber."?

--
Les Cargill

[Scott Dorsey]

nickbatz > wrote:
>
>Peter and Scott, you have to hear speakers that use these actual lenses to =
>understand what I'm saying about the speakers disappearing. You look at the=
> speakers and not believe that the sound is coming from them. The Bose 901s=
>, even Ohm Walsh speakers, whatever are quite different.

Yes, that's because the Bose 901s and the Ohm Walsh have godawful off-axis
response and they sacrifice an enormous amount of very important stuff in
order to get the wide dispersion.

Wide dispersion is nice, but it's not really very important, what is important
is dispersion control.

And I have heard the Beolab 5, albeit under very poor conditions in a show
demo room, and they sounded nice and had a good realistic stereo image,
or as good as it gets in a room with a flutter echo in it. But I have heard
good stereo imaging in many places.

>But I do agree 100% with one thing Peter says: like any speakers, or more t=
>han with almost any speakers, these are another reference. It's not the sam=
>e thing as what we're used to, and of course that makes them a different ki=
>nd of tool. (My UREI 809As are terrible, and their positions in my room are=
> totally suboptimal [out of necessity], but I still really like them for wh=
>at they do well!)

I want it to sound like it sounded when I was in the studio in front of the
band.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

nickbatz > wrote:
>By the way, I've also enjoyed listening in some rooms that have been "treated" the conventional "imaginary mirror on the wall" way. It's an interesting sound that works well for pop, although concert music doesn't sound right to me in those rooms.

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you talking about LEDE configuration?

>A good friend of mine went to a lot of trouble and expense putting up stuff all over the place to "tune" his room so it's flat at the listening position. It sounds impressive in its way.
>
>But just in its way. I wouldn't do that, and contrary to the conventional wisdom it certainly doesn't make sense for the reason so many people think it does.

Well, the problem is that making it flat at the listening position is the first
of many, many steps toward setting the room up properly.
--scott


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

[Scott Dorsey]

Les Cargill > wrote:
>William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> "nickbatz" wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>> We do NOT want to be listening to the direct field only from
>>>> two point sources in front of us in a dead room.
>>
>> Ignoring the fact that no listening room is altogether dead -- why is
>> that so wrong?
>>
>> You are falling back on the argument that the room is "supposed" to do
>> something to enhance the ambient component of the sound, without PROVING
>> the truth of the argument.
>
>Should we not look at it as "Vanishingly few rooms are anechoic
>chambers. Speaker should be designed therefore not to be at their
>best in an anechoic chamber."?

That's true.... unless you happen to be listening in an anechoic chamber.

The speaker and the room together make up a system and you cannot separate
one from the other.

And yes, in the real world recordings are made to be somewhat devoid of
early reflections so they can be played back in a room that has early
reflections. That is just convention, though. If people were playing back
in other environments, we would mike recordings differently to make
recordings that sounded realistic in those other environments.

This is not an argument, though, for adding more and more early reflections
in order to overpower the original ambience in the recording, which is what
our Bose-loving friend is advocating. Because recordings are not made to
be played back under such conditions.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

> I want it to sound like it sounded when I was in the studio
> in front of the band.

Horrors! You want the closest approach to the original sound!

[William Sommerwerck]

"Tom McCreadie" wrote in message
...

2. his July 1968 WW article:
"Stereophonic Image Sharpness ~ Results of experiments to determine how the
width of a sound image is related to... " (pdf via first link above)

Thank you for posting this! I now have several weeks of interesting reading
ahead of me.

One of the most interesting things was the shuffling circuit, designed to
correct for different image widths and positions at "low" and "high"
frequencies (in amplitude panning). This variation occurs because diffraction
around the head reduces amplitude differences between the ears at low
frequencies. This does not occur at high frequencies, so the perceived source
position is different. The difference in position has the effect of widening
the image.

This reminds me of a similar curve used in Ambisonic playback. I'm wondering
(rhetorically) if they're related. (I think they are.)

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
>
> > I want it to sound like it sounded when I was in the studio
> > in front of the band.
>
> Horrors! You want the closest approach to the original sound!

A worhty goal, in my listening world.

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

[Gary Eickmeier]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
> ...
>
>> William's processor is attempting to address the temporal,
>> but does nothing for the spatial - do you understand the
>> difference now -- unless he does something to make it come --
>> I mean really come -- from different directions thatn the direct sound.
>
> Well, these devices do -- through four speakers, to the sides and rear of
> the listening area. Are you that unfamiliar with how they work?

Well you faker! You are doing exactly what I am advocating and then arguing
with me!
>
>
>> So - if something was recorded in a very dry room with little reverb,
>> or if it was from the Concertgebeow or Boston Symphony Hall or
>> whatever, you will hear exactly and only that when you play it back.
>> But the people who have speakers and rooms with good spatial
>> qualities will get those sounds to come from more correct spatial
>> directions.
>
> I don't believe that -- PROVE IT.

Yes you do believe it, if you are using extra speakers on time delay placed
around you in your listening room.

Gary

[[email protected]]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

>> No. It's because the diaphragm has low mass compared
>> to the air load it's driving.

> AND... what is the result of that low mass?

>The driver's motion more-closely approximates the signal driving it. Peter
Walker discussed this in his early-1980 article on the ESL-63.

What exactly do you mean by motion?
You know that the drivers ACCELERATION needs to follow the signal, not the displacement and not the velocity.
Drivers operate in the mass limited regime.
So please be more specific,what is the perceived advantage of reduced mass?
I think the advantage you are thinking of has to do with the fact that the force is applied in a distributed fashion rather then centralized at a voice coil.
Mark

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...

> This is not an argument, though, for adding more and more early
> reflections
> in order to overpower the original ambience in the recording, which is
> what
> our Bose-loving friend is advocating. Because recordings are not made to
> be played back under such conditions.
> --scott

No, that is not what our Bose-loving friend is advocating. See if you can
understand this:

A single reflection does not make a reverberant field, and if it occurs
within the fusion time does not make an echo. If using some reflected sound
from the front and side walls is all that we are doing, and then damping
those reflections down in the rest of the room in the standard manner, then
the spatial nature of the frontal sound is all that is changing. From that
point on, the sound undergoes the same acoustical effects in my system as in
yours.

The principle of this is simple. If there are two surfaces parallel to each
other that would normally cause the lateral reflections that we call slap
echo, then if we put some absorption on one of these surfaces the sound will
not return and cause further reverberaton.

In my room I have specular reflectivity around the front near the speakers,
followed by more and more absorption and diffusion as you go back, plus
heavy carpeting and a cathedral ceiling, large stuffed sofa and two
loveseats at the listening position and more absorbers at the back of the
room. All this plus some surround speakers at the sides and back. There is
good acoustics in my listening room, with great intelligibilitgy and no slap
echo.

Therefore my room is not trying to overwhelm the acoustics on the recording.

And throwing in the Bose remark to try and turn the Bose haters against my
ideas will soon be a thing of the past. As I said, my ideas about all this
have nothing to do with any particular Bose product and I am making my final
prototype speakers to do the concept even better than the 901s. So that
distraction will be forever gone from criticism of me.

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>
>> "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
>>
>> > I want it to sound like it sounded when I was in the studio
>> > in front of the band.
>>
>> Horrors! You want the closest approach to the original sound!
>
> A worhty goal, in my listening world.

Brilliant. So what does the original sound sound like? Tell me all of the
factors about the live sound that you can hear. If you need a push, start
with the frequency response. What else?

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

> wrote in message
...
> William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>>"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
>
>>> No. It's because the diaphragm has low mass compared
>>> to the air load it's driving.
>
>> AND... what is the result of that low mass?
>
>>The driver's motion more-closely approximates the signal driving it. Peter
> Walker discussed this in his early-1980 article on the ESL-63.
>
> What exactly do you mean by motion?
> You know that the drivers ACCELERATION needs to follow the signal, not the
> displacement and not the velocity.
> Drivers operate in the mass limited regime.
> So please be more specific,what is the perceived advantage of reduced
> mass?
> I think the advantage you are thinking of has to do with the fact that the
> force is applied in a distributed fashion rather then centralized at a
> voice coil.
> Mark

I think they are working on yet one more misconception, the low mass driver.
Truth is, it doesn't matter if you are making the sound with a mylar
diaphragm or a frying pan, all that matters is the frequency response you
can get from it.

In total, what we can hear from a speaker is its frequency response and
radiation pattern.

Gary Eickmeier

[Gary Eickmeier]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...
>
>> You can paint it, put it on stands, nail it to the wall, put weights on
>> it, stand on your head and whistle Dixie, but what you will hear from any
>> speaker is well known.
>
> Were you present at this demonstration? No?
>
>
> Mark Davis tells us that what is audible about
> loudspeakers, what we hear, is the frequency response and radiation
> pattern.
> I would add that radiation pattern is not audible per se except as it
> affects the reflecting surfaces around the speakers. So I would add that
> what we hear are The Big Three of radiation pattern, speaker positioning,
> and the acoustics of the room surfaces.
>
> Cabinet diffraction and panel radiation have a significant effect on
> radiation pattern.
>
>
> THAT is what we hear with any and all speakers that we have ever heard in
> our lifetimes. I wonder if we might be able to compare that to the image
> model of the live sound and improve reproduction?
>
> PROVE IT!

As I said, I am going to do just that. I have a new speaker under
development that will have a variable radiation pattern. The front two
panels will have an L-pad on each so that they can be dialed down
individually or together. This plus rotating the speakers will allow us to
subjectively test which ones do a better job of displaying the auditory
scene.

Gary

[PStamler]

"These people [audiophiles] go to a great deal of trouble to achieve the effect of a symphony orchestra actually playing in their sitting-room. I can think of nothing I would hate more than to have a symphony orchestra playing in my sitting-room." - Michael Flanders

Peace,
Paul

[Gary Eickmeier]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>
>> William, what you fail to understand and probably never will is that in
>> the
>> stereophonic system the sounds and their placement are real and not an
>> illusion.
>
> The sound is a real sound, of course, The illusion to which William
> refers is that said sound is the sound of the source. It is not, and
> rather obviously not.

What I am talking about, Hank, is the difference between stereo and binaural
in the way the imaging is interpreted by our hearing.

Starting with binaural, loudspeaker binaural to make it as similar as
possible, what we are doing is a direct sensory input of the two channels to
our ears so that we might hear exactly what the dummy head heard when
recording the music and the entire acoustic space from where it was placed
in the auditorium. In this case, the ears are "fooled" about their actual
location and they hear the original space hopefully the same way the dummy
head did. Doesn't matter where you are, how far apart the speakers are,
doesn't even matter what the radiation pattern of the speakers is, as long
as it doesn't throw much of the room sound that you are in toward your ears
and interfere. The sound that you hear in binaural is a total illusion and
is intended to transport you to the concert hall.

But stereo is a different animal altogether. Different in KIND, not just
degree. Once the interchannel crosstalk is restored, and both ears are free
to hear all spatial details of the acoustical presentation in front of them,
they can localize each speaker, they can tell where those speakers are in
the room, and they can hear the actual room superimposed upon the recorded
room. They can also hear wide dispersion, narrow dispersion, positive or
negative directivity index, all of it. A whole different ballgame from
binaural, with a whole different set of ground rules for realistic
reproduction.

The sound can no longer "fool" you into hearing that other acoustic space to
the exclusion of the one you are in. If you screw up the positioning of the
speakers your ears can localize each one as a separate source that does not
correlate with the other one into a fused center image. If you want more
spaciousness you must purposely create it by placing it there for real. You
need to realize that what you are actually hearing is the image model of the
speakers and room, and therefore what you should be studying for the ground
rules for the reproduction is the live image model - a giant pattern of
direct and reflected sounds that have a certain pattern within their
original room The main idea in my original paper is to mimic a typical
image model of the live situation. We neutralize the deleterious effects of
the reflected sound with judicious speaker positioning to make the
reflections of the speakers fuse with the actual speakers in a beneficial
way.

It can be done!

Gary Eickmeier

[Gary Eickmeier]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>
>> It grieves me to have to get so basic with you or anyone else here, but
>> that
>> indeed seems to be the whole problem. You may not have thought about this
>> to
>> the extent that I have, or it may be the fault of all of the textbooks
>> and
>> the magazines about what stereo is, and is not.
>
> Did your mama teach you hubris or do you take to it naturally? Of
> course, only you, of all acousticians in the world, know what's really
> up. Except you're not an acoustician, right?
>
> I return to my earlier view that you cannot learn, because you already
> know it all. More than the sound from a speaker is illusory here.

Do you have anything to contribute or not?

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>> You guys aren't making sense. You claim to disagree with me, then
>> you print this.
>
> Most of what you say doesn't make enough sense to disagree or agree
> with in any way. Your inability to understand the most basic
> concepts of stereophony hamper your ability to make any arguments
> with regard to dispersion.

What are you talking about? What concepts do I not understand?


> Neither I nor you have talked about a single spatial anomaly in this
> message. We have so far talked only about tonal ones. I have given
> up attempting to explain spatial perception to you.

You haven't started to explain spatial perception yet.
>
> --scott

Gary

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

> Scott Dorsey wrote:

>> Peter Larsen > wrote:

>>> You need to read your Harwood Gary, he wrote a very interesting
>>> paper about why loudspeakers sound like they do and the importance
>>> of a constant directivity index and deviations therefrom causing
>>> coloration at x-over frequencies,
>>> it was in Wireless World sometime between ... sheesh 1976 to 1978,
>>> perhaps it is on the web somewhere.

>> I'd love to see a citation on that. There was so much great stuff in
>> Wireless World that never made it over to this side of the water.

>> --scott

> A constant directivity index, but which one?

A constant one.

> These guys seem to just
> assume that direct is the only way to go, and so the difference in
> the directivity between the tweeter and the rest of the drivers is
> the problem, so what we need to do is make them all the same -

Yes, Harwood explains loudspeaker coloration, especially what is not
measurable via the on axis frequency response.

> forward!

No such suggestion is made.

> It would never occur to them to attain the constant directivity index
> by making them all omni. My speaker will have a negative diretivity
> index, most of the sound going in the reflected direction.

I get to say nonsense, I get to say nonsense, I get to say:

NONSENSE! - which is to say that negative mass is somewhat probable in a
total model of the universe, directivity index goes from 0 for
omnidirectional to 1 for unidirectional.

> Study live sound - every aspect of it, every spatial, spectral, and
> temporal characteristic of it, study it until your eyes and ears are
> bleeding and your brain has had enough, then study it some more. THAT
> is what we are trying to reproduce.

No Gary, you are trying to produce sound, ie. to produce a new soundfield
instead of rendering the one that is recorded.

> Gary

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

> "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

> I haven't worked on those but I have worked on earlier KEFs (and of
> course on the LS 3/5a) and found them very easy to mix on. The
> detail on the top end of the ESLs is amazing, though. They are
> detailed without being bright and I attribute that to very smooth
> off-axis response on the top octave.

> No. It's because the diaphragm has low mass compared to the air load
> it's driving.

That is a parameter of the bass range, not of the treble range.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

nickbatz wrote:

> Okay Gary, then that explains why you understand what I'm saying
> better than I do. :)

> Peter and Scott, you have to hear speakers that use these actual
> lenses ...

Oh, I know lenses, they were one of Steen Duelunds ideas and I happened to
be on his listening panel. Eventually it ended up being one of the ideas
that I didn't agree on, but that was - and is - because he used them to
disperse frequency response peaks to get a more pleasing sound. That worked
fine, but electric correction leads to a more precise sound, and that I
prefer.

The Beolab 5's are furniture, just like the Bose 901's, quite possibly
neater as well as better sounding, but the concept is the same, integration
of the sound in the room. My understanding is that you are on the same
quest.

> to understand what I'm saying about the speakers disappearing.
> You look at the speakers and not believe that the sound is coming
> from them.

What matters to me is that I can close my eyes and listen to the recorded
room.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Tom McCreadie wrote:

> On 14 Jan 2014 08:46:49 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>> Peter Larsen wrote:
>>>
>>> You need to read your Harwood Gary, he wrote a very interesting
>>> paper about why loudspeakers sound like they do and the importance
>>> of a constant directivity index and deviations therefrom causing
>>> coloration at x-over frequencies,
>>> it was in Wireless World sometime between ... sheesh 1976 to 1978,
>>> perhaps it is on the web somewhere.
>>
>> I'd love to see a citation on that. There was so much great stuff
>> in Wireless World that never made it over to this side of the water.
>
> It's probably either:

> 1. his 1968 WW article: "New B.B.C. Monitoring Loudspeaker"

> a pdf scan of that article can be is available from:
> <http://www.keith-snook.info/wireless-world-magazine/wireless-world-articles.html>
> and also via the Harbeth Users Forum - if you're qualified to log in
> <http://www.harbeth.co.uk/usergroup/showthread.php?1796-quot-New-B-B-C-Monitoring-Loudspeaker-quot-(Harwood-1968-Wireless-World-magazine)>
>
> or
> 2. his July 1968 WW article:
> "Stereophonic Image Sharpness ~ Results of experiments to determine
> how the width of a sound image is related to... " (pdf via first
> link above)

Neither, it is (methinks) 76 to 78 and I think the title was "Loudspeakers",
the subjects covered are the importance of constant or constantly deviating
directivity index and delayed resonance as later (!) made blatantly obvious
with waterfall diagrams. I possibly have a photocopy somewhere, but will not
make any promises, it was last seen a couple of years before I moved.

However, there quite possibly is no harm done in reading all he wrote, he
seems to have been a sensible guy.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Tom McCreadie]

Peter Larsen wrote:

>Tom McCreadie wrote:
<snip>
>> It's probably either:
>
>> 1. his 1968 WW article: "New B.B.C. Monitoring Loudspeaker"
>
>> a pdf scan of that article can be is available from:
>> <http://www.keith-snook.info/wireless-world-magazine/wireless-world-articles.html>
>> and also via the Harbeth Users Forum - if you're qualified to log in
>> <http://www.harbeth.co.uk/usergroup/showthread.php?1796-quot-New-B-B-C-Monitoring-Loudspeaker-quot-(Harwood-1968-Wireless-World-magazine)>
>>
>> or
>> 2. his July 1968 WW article:
>> "Stereophonic Image Sharpness ~ Results of experiments to determine
>> how the width of a sound image is related to... " (pdf via first
>> link above)
>
>Neither, it is (methinks) 76 to 78 and I think the title was "Loudspeakers",
>the subjects covered are the importance of constant or constantly deviating
>directivity index and delayed resonance as later (!) made blatantly obvious
>with waterfall diagrams. I possibly have a photocopy somewhere, but will not
>make any promises, it was last seen a couple of years before I moved.
>

Then possibly this May 1976 WW paper?
http://www.linkwitzlab.com/Wireless%20World/Harwood-BBC.htm
__
Tom McCreadie

[William Sommerwerck]

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
...

>> No. It's because the diaphragm has low mass compared
>> to the air load it's driving.

> That is a parameter of the bass range, not of the treble range.

Tell that to Ross Walker.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...
"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...
>
>> William's processor is attempting to address the temporal,
>> but does nothing for the spatial - do you understand the
>> difference now -- unless he does something to make it come --
>> I mean really come -- from different directions thatn the direct sound.
>
> Well, these devices do -- through four speakers, to the sides and rear of
> the listening area. Are you that unfamiliar with how they work?

Well you faker! You are doing exactly what I am advocating and then arguing
with me!

Oh, no I'm not. The speakers carry different, synthesized signals -- not the
original program material.


>> So - if something was recorded in a very dry room with little reverb,
>> or if it was from the Concertgebeow or Boston Symphony Hall or
>> whatever, you will hear exactly and only that when you play it back.
>> But the people who have speakers and rooms with good spatial
>> qualities will get those sounds to come from more correct spatial
>> directions.

> I don't believe that -- PROVE IT.

Yes you do believe it, if you are using extra speakers on time delay placed
around you in your listening room.

I'm NOT.

[William Sommerwerck]

There's a ST:NG episode in which a strange alien is introduced who takes a
liking to Will Crusher, seeing in him a great engineering mind -- and possible
metaphysician. (The intent was to create a series-long story arc, which ended
when Will eventually left with the alien in a much-later episode.)

This traveller is has a human companion who claims to be able to significantly
improve warp-drive performance. His explanations of what he's doing are
rejected as gobbledydegook by the Enterprise's crew. Which is rather amusing,
because warp drive (as it is implemented in Star Trek) is itself
gobbledydegook.

Do I make my point, Gary?

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> There's a ST:NG episode in which a strange alien is introduced who
> takes a liking to Will Crusher, seeing in him a great engineering
> mind -- and possible metaphysician. (The intent was to create a
> series-long story arc, which ended when Will eventually left with
> the alien in a much-later episode.)
>
> This traveller is has a human companion who claims to be able to
> significantly improve warp-drive performance. His explanations of
> what he's doing are rejected as gobbledydegook by the Enterprise's
> crew. Which is rather amusing, because warp drive (as it is
> implemented in Star Trek) is itself gobbledydegook.
>
> Do I make my point, Gary?
>

Does it have anything to do with sanctimonious geek losers who hang
out at comic book stores, live in scifi fantasy worlds, think their
demented internal dreams of omnipotence are "always right" in the real
world, and have no real-life friends?

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>In total, what we can hear from a speaker is its frequency response and
>radiation pattern.

These are two things that are tightly coupled together... you cannot
break them apart. You can imagine one 3-D plot in which the frequency
response can be determined for every direction of radiation.

But, you also neglect distortion, which is a very significant issue in
speakers. The speaker is by far, by a couple orders of magnitude, the
greatest source of distortion in the whole chain.

And, you also neglect time domain effects. These could include echoes
inside the box, some kinds of cabinet problems, etc. These all have the
end result of changing the frequency response in some directions, but
they have other additional side-effects and sometimes people attempting
to compensate for them manage to get the frequency response flat but still
have ringing.

All in all, speakers are pretty miserable. Rooms are usually even worse.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Peter Larsen > wrote:
>William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>> "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
>
>> I haven't worked on those but I have worked on earlier KEFs (and of
>> course on the LS 3/5a) and found them very easy to mix on. The
>> detail on the top end of the ESLs is amazing, though. They are
>> detailed without being bright and I attribute that to very smooth
>> off-axis response on the top octave.
>
>> No. It's because the diaphragm has low mass compared to the air load
>> it's driving.
>
>That is a parameter of the bass range, not of the treble range.

No, no, that can become a big deal on the top end as well. On the top end,
you're not so worried about the air load anymore, but you're still worried
about the stiffness of the driver, the mass of the driver, and then
consequently the ability of the driver to follow the input signal.

But... the point I keep making is that there are so many different things
wrong with speakers that just getting one parameter right is not enough.

People keep talking about these wide-dispersion systems, but if the
tonality is not right and the response is not even, who cares what the
dispersion is?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

Here's a question I doubt anyone has ever investigated...

If a dynamic speaker had /exactly/ the same frequency and phase response as an
electrostatic speaker -- would it sound the same?

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Tom McCreadie wrote:

> Then possibly this May 1976 WW paper?
> http://www.linkwitzlab.com/Wireless%20World/Harwood-BBC.htm

Yes!

> Tom McCreadie

Thank you Tom!

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

> Here's a question I doubt anyone has ever investigated...

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/Wireless%20World/Harwood-BBC.htm

> If a dynamic speaker had /exactly/ the same frequency and phase
> response as an electrostatic speaker -- would it sound the same?

Add polarity response and we may be able to start betting.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Peter Larsen > wrote:
>> William Sommerwerck wrote:

>>> "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
>>> ...

>>> I haven't worked on those but I have worked on earlier KEFs (and of
>>> course on the LS 3/5a) and found them very easy to mix on. The
>>> detail on the top end of the ESLs is amazing, though. They are
>>> detailed without being bright and I attribute that to very smooth
>>> off-axis response on the top octave.

>>> No. It's because the diaphragm has low mass compared to the air load
>>> it's driving.

>> That is a parameter of the bass range, not of the treble range.

> No, no, that can become a big deal on the top end as well. On the
> top end, you're not so worried about the air load anymore, but you're
> still worried about the stiffness of the driver, the mass of the
> driver, and then consequently the ability of the driver to follow the
> input signal.

Ah yes Scott, but the mass of the membrane is likely to be large compared to
the air load on it in the treble range.

> But... the point I keep making is that there are so many different
> things wrong with speakers that just getting one parameter right is
> not enough.

There is this awkward quality circle, pull it to get something "just right"
and something else will get "just wrong".

> People keep talking about these wide-dispersion systems, but if the
> tonality is not right and the response is not even, who cares what the
> dispersion is?

I heard a pair of Bang and Olufsen column speakers, active probably. The
signal was cable FM, so it is not really possible to know "how good", but
they gave a favorable first impression.

> --scott

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Peter Larsen wrote:

> Scott Dorsey wrote:

>> Peter Larsen > wrote:
>>> William Sommerwerck wrote:

>>>> "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
>>>> ...

>>>> I haven't worked on those but I have worked on earlier KEFs (and of
>>>> course on the LS 3/5a) and found them very easy to mix on. The
>>>> detail on the top end of the ESLs is amazing, though. They are
>>>> detailed without being bright and I attribute that to very smooth
>>>> off-axis response on the top octave.

>>>> No. It's because the diaphragm has low mass compared to the air
>>>> load it's driving.

>>> That is a parameter of the bass range, not of the treble range.

Sorry, used the wrong word, it should have been "that is a property" ...

>> No, no, that can become a big deal on the top end as well. On the
>> top end, you're not so worried about the air load anymore, but you're
>> still worried about the stiffness of the driver, the mass of the
>> driver, and then consequently the ability of the driver to follow the
>> input signal.
>
> Ah yes Scott, but the mass of the membrane is likely to be large
> compared to the air load on it in the treble range.
>
>> But... the point I keep making is that there are so many different
>> things wrong with speakers that just getting one parameter right is
>> not enough.
>
> There is this awkward quality circle, pull it to get something "just
> right" and something else will get "just wrong".
>
>> People keep talking about these wide-dispersion systems, but if the
>> tonality is not right and the response is not even, who cares what
>> the dispersion is?
>
> I heard a pair of Bang and Olufsen column speakers, active probably.
> The signal was cable FM, so it is not really possible to know "how
> good", but they gave a favorable first impression.
>
>> --scott
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen

--

Peter Larsen
Langeås 20
4281 Gørlev
3582 1612

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> Here's a question I doubt anyone has ever investigated...
>
> If a dynamic speaker had /exactly/ the same frequency and phase response

Does that work out to *exactly* the same as
"the same impulse response"?

I think it does.

> as an electrostatic speaker -- would it sound the same?


If the answer to my question is "yes", then yes.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Peter Larsen wrote:
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>> Here's a question I doubt anyone has ever investigated...
>
> http://www.linkwitzlab.com/Wireless%20World/Harwood-BBC.htm
>
>> If a dynamic speaker had /exactly/ the same frequency and phase
>> response as an electrostatic speaker -- would it sound the same?
>
> Add polarity response and we may be able to start betting.
>

Reverse + and -, and polarity is a wash. Right? If you mean
"polar response" then ... oh.

> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen
>
>

--
Les Cargill

[None]

"Les Cargill" > wrote in message
...
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> Here's a question I doubt anyone has ever investigated...
>>
>> If a dynamic speaker had /exactly/ the same frequency and phase
>> response
>
> Does that work out to *exactly* the same as
> "the same impulse response"?
>
> I think it does.
>
>> as an electrostatic speaker -- would it sound the same?
>
>
> If the answer to my question is "yes", then yes.

Would have to have the exact same impulse response in all directions
in 4Ï€ space.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Les Cargill" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

>> Here's a question I doubt anyone has ever investigated...
>> If a dynamic speaker had /exactly/ the same frequency
>> and phase response...

> Does that work out to *exactly* the same as
> "the same impulse response"?
> I think it does.

Ah. Someone who actually understands...


>> ...as an electrostatic speaker -- would it sound the same?

> If the answer to my question is "yes", then yes.

You would think so. But no one has done the experiment.

[William Sommerwerck]

"None" wrote in message
m...
"Les Cargill" > wrote in message
...
> William Sommerwerck wrote:

>> Here's a question I doubt anyone has ever investigated...
>> If a dynamic speaker had /exactly/ the same frequency and phase response

> Does that work out to *exactly* the same as
> "the same impulse response"?
> I think it does.

>> as an electrostatic speaker -- would it sound the same?

> If the answer to my question is "yes", then yes.

Would have to have the exact same impulse response in all directions
in 4Ï€ space.

The idea is to try it and see what happens, rather than putting an initial
restriction that tempts experimenters not to try at all.

There's nothing wrong with performing a non-ideal experiment, if you know what
the limitations are.

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "None" wrote in message
> m...
> "Les Cargill" > wrote in message
> ...
>> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>>> Here's a question I doubt anyone has ever investigated...
>>> If a dynamic speaker had /exactly/ the same frequency and phase
>>> response
>
>> Does that work out to *exactly* the same as
>> "the same impulse response"?
>> I think it does.
>
>>> as an electrostatic speaker -- would it sound the same?
>
>> If the answer to my question is "yes", then yes.
>
> Would have to have the exact same impulse response in all directions
> in 4Ï€ space.
>
> The idea is to try it and see what happens, rather than putting an
> initial restriction that tempts experimenters not to try at all.
>
> There's nothing wrong with performing a non-ideal experiment, if you
> know what the limitations are.

[Inability to use property Usenet quoting protocol retained, above, to
ridicule the obstinate and ignorant.]

Unless you actually intend to do the experiment, it's just a though
experiment anyway. Apparently, you're already tempted not to try at
all; in fact, it's likely that you have no intention of ever
conducting the experiment. So what's the point of running away from
rigorous design of the experiment?

The experiment is likely to be irrelevant without directional
information. And specifying direction raises significant problems with
multi-way dynamic speakers and electrostatics.

[Scott Dorsey]

None > wrote:
>Unless you actually intend to do the experiment, it's just a though
>experiment anyway. Apparently, you're already tempted not to try at
>all; in fact, it's likely that you have no intention of ever
>conducting the experiment. So what's the point of running away from
>rigorous design of the experiment?

Because it's a thing that you cannot do accurately because you cannot
control radiation pattern sufficiently to make sure that the frequency
response in all directions is identical between the two speaker systems.
So it can only be performed as a thought experiment.

But, that said.... speakers are very nonlinear, even the best of them.
And that nonlinearity would make for audible differences even if the
response was identical.

That is a thing that you _can_ test, by putting the two speakers into
anechoic chambers, putting microphones in front of them, and playing back
a signal source and recording it at a point where the response was the
same (and/or was equalized to be the same). This eliminates all of the
room effects and all the effects due to radiation pattern and leaves _only_
differences due to distortion.

And, I predict that if you did that, you would find those differences
were substantial. Not only that, I predict you could tell differences
between different cone speaker designs with identical (or equalized to
be identical) response.

>The experiment is likely to be irrelevant without directional
>information. And specifying direction raises significant problems with
>multi-way dynamic speakers and electrostatics.

I think that even without directional information you'll be able to
tell differences and I think a distortion spectrum will tell you why
(even ignoring the impulse response issues).
--scott

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

[William Sommerwerck]

"None" wrote in message
m...
"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...

>> The idea is to try it and see what happens, rather than putting
>> an initial restriction that tempts experimenters not to try at all.
>> There's nothing wrong with performing a non-ideal experiment,
>> if you know what the limitations are.

> Unless you actually intend to do the experiment, it's just a thought
> experiment anyway. Apparently, you're already tempted not to try at
> all; in fact, it's likely that you have no intention of ever conducting
> the experiment. So what's the point of running away from rigorous
> design of the experiment?

Why am I obliged to respond to such stupid, self-serving comments?

Get me the money and the facilities and I'll do it. Of course, no one will,
because everyone is convinced he knows the answer to every question, without
having to actually test it.


> The experiment is likely to be irrelevant without directional information.
> And specifying direction raises significant problems
> with multi-way dynamic speakers and electrostatics.

You remind me of a certain magazine editor I don't get along well with, as wll
as almost everyone who considers himself a "scientist", but argues himself out
of performing /any/ experiment. Thirty years ago I suggested to this editor
that he pay me to do full-time research on many questions about sound
reproduction and subjective listening. His instantaneous response -- which
he's notorious for -- was No.

One could put together a two-dimensional array of high-quality dynamic drivers
of the same area as the electrostatic panel. At a "reasonable" distance, both
would have essentially the same radiation pattern.

[William Sommerwerck]

One of the most-basic principles of good research is... "Try it and see what
happens". That's one of the ways you learn. You don't sit around arguing why
something won't work.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>>In total, what we can hear from a speaker is its frequency response and
>>radiation pattern.
>
> These are two things that are tightly coupled together... you cannot
> break them apart. You can imagine one 3-D plot in which the frequency
> response can be determined for every direction of radiation.
>
> But, you also neglect distortion, which is a very significant issue in
> speakers. The speaker is by far, by a couple orders of magnitude, the
> greatest source of distortion in the whole chain.
>
> And, you also neglect time domain effects. These could include echoes
> inside the box, some kinds of cabinet problems, etc. These all have the
> end result of changing the frequency response in some directions, but
> they have other additional side-effects and sometimes people attempting
> to compensate for them manage to get the frequency response flat but still
> have ringing.
>
> All in all, speakers are pretty miserable. Rooms are usually even worse.
> --scott

Mark Davis went carefully through all of these supposed distortions in
speakers and showed that none of them was audible. His conclusion was as I
stated, that really all that we can hear about speakers is the frequency
response and radiation pattern. I would add a couple of refinements to that
observation, namely power and speaker positioning in the room.

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "Les Cargill" wrote in message ... William
> Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>>> Here's a question I doubt anyone has ever investigated...
>>> If a dynamic speaker had /exactly/ the same frequency
>>> and phase response...
>
>> Does that work out to *exactly* the same as
>> "the same impulse response"?
>> I think it does.
>
> Ah. Someone who actually understands...
>
>
>>> ...as an electrostatic speaker -- would it sound the same?
>
>> If the answer to my question is "yes", then yes.
>
> You would think so. But no one has done the experiment.

High Fidelity magazine, June 1978, Dr Mark Davis, "What's Really Important
in Loudspeaker Performance?". In a sidebar Davis, Al Foster of the BAS,
Prof. Campbell Searle and graduate student John Bourne experiment with
frequency response and radiation pattern and prove that they can make
various combinations of small box speakers sound like any other speaker they
wish. The article is a classic in teaching what is audible about speakers
and should be in everyone's fact store.

Gary

[nickbatz]

Scott wrote:

>I want it to sound like it sounded when I was I was in the studio in front of the band.

Then you have to use a similar monitoring set-up, of course, and that rules out speakers with acoustic lenses for you.

Scott also wrote something to the effect that the response of the speakers has to be right otherwise who cares. Well yeah.

Scott, I haven't heard the B&Os, so maybe they totally suck and are just furniture. That seems totally farfetched to me, but I can't say.

What I can say is that anyone who makes any comment about speakers with acoustic lenses and doesn't agree with what I heard is full of ****. :) I know Scott is anything but, but I'm saying that in general. :)

Does that mean I expect anyone to agree with me about how good the prototypes I heard are? Of course not.

But it does mean that the imaging is quite unlike any other speaker you've ever heard. Screw Bose. Screw Walsh. This is a very different sound, and anyone who's heard it knows in five seconds what I mean. The speakers totally disappear. Of course they should disappear in any good system, but this is something else.

Everyone has an opinion based on what they believe is the correct theory, citing arguments to authority or whatever. But you have to hear these speakers - probably set up decently, from what I've read here - or else you don't know what the frick you're talking about. Period!

And I don't claim to be as knowledgeable as lots of people here - I'm not - I just know what anyone who has heard these speakers will hear.

Boom!

[nickbatz]

By the way, my huffiness is not directed at you, Scott! I hope that's clear - you're one of the most knowledgeable people I've met. And as fast a writer as I am after all these years, I've never met anyone besides you who can turn out a great 2500 word article during their lunch hour!

[William Sommerwerck]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...

High Fidelity magazine, June 1978, Dr Mark Davis, "What's Really Important
in Loudspeaker Performance?". In a sidebar Davis, Al Foster of the BAS,
Prof. Campbell Searle and graduate student John Bourne experiment with
frequency response and radiation pattern and prove that they can make
various combinations of small box speakers sound like any other speaker
they wish. The article is a classic in teaching what is audible about speakers
and should be in everyone's fact store.

/Any/ other speaker? Did they make them sound like a pair of KLH Nines? Or
QUADs? I don't think so.

Dr Bose proved that the 2201 speaker system could perfectly reproduce sound --
that is, what came out of it was indistinguishable from a perfect point source
at the same position in the room. If you believe that...

[Gary Eickmeier]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> There's a ST:NG episode in which a strange alien is introduced who takes a
> liking to Will Crusher, seeing in him a great engineering mind -- and
> possible metaphysician. (The intent was to create a series-long story arc,
> which ended when Will eventually left with the alien in a much-later
> episode.)
>
> This traveller is has a human companion who claims to be able to
> significantly improve warp-drive performance. His explanations of what
> he's doing are rejected as gobbledydegook by the Enterprise's crew. Which
> is rather amusing, because warp drive (as it is implemented in Star Trek)
> is itself gobbledydegook.
>
> Do I make my point, Gary?

Yes William, unfortunately you do. This spatial stuff is completely
incomprehensible to most dyed in the wool audio old timers who have been
taught all of the old saws about the primacy of the direct sound, just aim
it at your face and you will hear stereo. You don't even hear a word I am
saying.

Gary

[William Sommerwerck]

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

> There's a ST:NG episode in which a strange alien is introduced who takes a
> liking to Will Crusher, seeing in him a great engineering mind -- and
> possible metaphysician. (The intent was to create a series-long story arc,
> which ended when Will eventually left with the alien in a much-later
> episode.)
> This traveller is has a human companion who claims to be able to
> significantly improve warp-drive performance. His explanations of what
> he's doing are rejected as gobbledydegook by the Enterprise's crew. Which
> is rather amusing, because warp drive (as it is implemented in Star Trek)
> is itself gobbledydegook.
> Do I make my point, Gary?

Yes William, unfortunately you do. This spatial stuff is completely
incomprehensible to most dyed in the wool audio old timers who have been
taught all of the old saws about the primacy of the direct sound, just aim
it at your face and you will hear stereo. You don't even hear a word I am
saying.

/Saying/ something is not, per se, proof of anything.

[Gary Eickmeier]

nickbatz wrote:


> Everyone has an opinion based on what they believe is the correct
> theory, citing arguments to authority or whatever. But you have to
> hear these speakers - probably set up decently, from what I've read
> here - or else you don't know what the frick you're talking about.
> Period!
>
> And I don't claim to be as knowledgeable as lots of people here - I'm
> not - I just know what anyone who has heard these speakers will hear.
>
> Boom!

Nick thanks for being here and at least trying! Now I know there is at least
one other who understands what I am trying to tell them. As I said, Dave
Moulton is a like-minded friend who has studied radiation patterns and rooms
and has done some great work on these speakers.

I am working on a pair of speakers that may be able to demonstrate precisely
what we are talking about and why it works that way. The discovery of these
principles depends on several accidental factors happening at once. You may
have a decent speaker like the Beolabs or the Ohm F or MBL and if you
mis-position them and screw up the reflection patterns you will miss the
whole effect. Speaker positioning is much more important for a speaker with
a majority of reflected output.

I have discovered all of these factors at first by accident and then by
experimentation. But I can tell these folks all about it point blank and
they just stare back at me and tell me I'm crazy. So I continue with the IMP
(Image Model Projector) project. Please write to me in Email if you are
interested in learning more about it and/or want to give a listen when they
are ready. I am in central Florida.

Gary Eickmeier

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Les Cargill wrote:

> Peter Larsen wrote:
>> William Sommerwerck wrote:

>>> Here's a question I doubt anyone has ever investigated...

>> http://www.linkwitzlab.com/Wireless%20World/Harwood-BBC.htm

>>> If a dynamic speaker had /exactly/ the same frequency and phase
>>> response as an electrostatic speaker -- would it sound the same?

>> Add polarity response and we may be able to start betting.

> Reverse + and -, and polarity is a wash. Right? If you mean
> "polar response" then ... oh.

I shall drink coffee before I post
I shall drink coffee before I post
I shall drink coffee before I post
I shall drink coffee before I post
I shall drink coffee before I post
I shall drink coffee before I post
I shall drink coffee before I post
I shall drink coffee before I post
I shall drink coffee before I post
I shall drink coffee before I post
I shall drink coffee before I post
I shall drink coffee before I post
I shall drink coffee before I post
I shall drink coffee before I post
I shall drink coffee before I post
I shall drink coffee before I post
I shall drink coffee before I post
I shall drink coffee before I post
I shall drink coffee before I post
I shall drink coffee before I post
I shall drink coffee before I post
I shall drink coffee before I post
I shall drink coffee before I post
I shall drink coffee before I post
I shall drink coffee before I post
I shall drink coffee before I post
I shall drink coffee before I post
I shall drink coffee before I post
I shall drink coffee before I post
I shall drink coffee before I post
I shall drink coffee before I post
I shall drink coffee before I post


>> Kind regards
>>
>> Peter Larsen

[William Sommerwerck]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...

> No Virginia, there is no Santa Claus. Get over it. Just kidding, but the
> point is no, you cannot make a recording of the Concertgebouw and
> reproduce it in your home -- even if you know how to spell it...

OH, YES YOU CAN. I did it in at least one recording, made in 1980. If you have
never made ambient-surround orchestral recordings, you do not have the
experience to properly evaluate your theories.

Gary, you do not have the experience to properly discuss what you are talking
about. You think, and think, and think -- but ultimately you have to do. And
until you start doing, there is no point in discussing this.

There's a Peanuts cartoon where Linus asks (about how they always lose at
baseball) "How can we lose when we're so sincere?". Just because you're
sincere, Gary, doesn't mean you know what you're talking about.

The fundamental thing about "science" that sets it apart from other ways of
thinking is the importance of asking good questions. Without those questions,
you have no way of performing useful, valid experiments. You /assume/ you
already know the answer (image-mapping, or whatever it's called). Assuming
the answer is not good science.


> Number one, the central recording problem, you have to run the
> sound through two rooms before you hear it. Number two, you
> cannot make a small room sound like a larger room by playing a
> recording of the larger room inside it.

YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO. The idea is to bring the listener to the original
venue, not to shoehorn an orchestra into the listening room. Why is this so
difficult to understand? (Flanders & Swan, "High Fidelity")

Have you heard the recent Rene Jacobs performance of Bach's "Mass in b-minor"?
It sounds as if you are at the original performance, with a plausible hall
acoustic surrounding you. Is it a correct rendition of the original venue? I
don't know, but it's believable. It comes close to sounding as if you are in
the "living presence" of the music.

"It works", because my room's reverb time is significantly shorter than that
of the recoding venue, and the latter's sound SWAMPS the former. The listening
room has to have pathological problems (such as strong resonances, or slap
echo) before its contribution audibly interferes with the recording.


> The audiophile fantasy is that a recording is this "picture" of another
> acoustic space and if and when the chain gets accurate enough, you
> can just play that picture in front of you like a big CinemaScope movie
> and you will "hear" the other space. But no, it wasn't recorded that way
> -- from a position in the audience -- and that is not the technology that
> can do such a thing.

But it is. (See preceding.)

The quality of recordings and speakers has gotten so good that we can achieve
at least the illusion of facsimile reproduction -- which is what "high
fidelity" is all about. I'm not the only person in this group who wants that.

Yet there are always people -- who don't listen to acoustic music -- trying to
convince us that such a thing is impossible, but they've get some magic
techno-nostrum that will make everything hunky-dorey.

I'm not the least-bit interested in what they're offering. When I play a
recording, I want a strong sense that I am actually present at the original
event. SACD might not be the major improvement over CD that Sony claims it is.
But at least it's forced/encouraged producers & engineers to make recordings
that resemble a live performance, rather than being "a NEW work of art".

People like Gary (and Floyd Toole) are constantly trying to destroy the
concept of fidelity to the original sound. I'm not going to sit buy and let
them do it.

Put up or shut up, Gary. Demonstrate that your system brings the listener
closer to the sound of the original performance. Because otherwise... Who
gives a damn?


> William Snow said many years ago that the binaural system is intended
> to transport the listener to another acoustic space, but the stereophonic
> system is meant to transport the sound to the listener's room.

Snow was wrong.

[Luxey]

Humans do not listen with their ears only. They have brain involved in the process. So just like one can focus on particular voice in a crowd and understand what was said, one can focus on main source in the room and hear the image (he, he, HEAR THE IMAGE) it's spitting out, (sub)consciously cutting out all false cues, to a personally comfortable degree.
Turning the whole room into a source is not a bad idea, but doing it by wall reflections can only make the representation of original sound stage (I'll keep to avoid hearing images, as I do already for some 20 years) less accurate, although it may come as more pleasing and easier to listen to.

[Gary Eickmeier]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...
>
> High Fidelity magazine, June 1978, Dr Mark Davis, "What's Really
> Important in Loudspeaker Performance?". In a sidebar Davis, Al Foster of
> the
> BAS, Prof. Campbell Searle and graduate student John Bourne experiment
> with
> frequency response and radiation pattern and prove that they can make
> various combinations of small box speakers sound like any other
> speaker they wish. The article is a classic in teaching what is audible
> about
> speakers and should be in everyone's fact store.
>
> /Any/ other speaker? Did they make them sound like a pair of KLH
> Nines? Or QUADs? I don't think so.

They made a set of AR-7s sound like the AR LST and a concoction of 4 small
bookshelf speakers and a Lexicon digital delay system sound like a pair of
901s. Those were just the toughest challenges. There were some others but
they didn't bother to detail all of them. The point was that there is more
to speaker sound than frequency response. They tried at first with an array
of equalizing equipment, but found that was not sufficient to make a match.


>
> Dr Bose proved that the 2201 speaker system could perfectly reproduce
> sound -- that is, what came out of it was indistinguishable from a
> perfect point source at the same position in the room. If you believe
> that...

Glad you asked - they were just going on the legend of the "perfect point
source" that everyone thought was the ideal but unobtainable. It seems
reasonable on first thought - a massless, infinitely small source that puts
out flat response in a 4 pi steradian volume with no distortion, phase
anomolies - no known limitations of real drivers. So they went through this
whole years long project to simulate that and achieved it with the help of
Tom Stockam and his supercomputer and all. So this "beehive" speaker with
God knows how many drivers on an eightth of a sphere in a corner sounds
identical to the spark discharge convolution of music and speech, but when
they play music through them in stereo it still has all of the problems that
they had heard with normal stereo direct firing speakers, so they admit they
were wrong, on the wrong track, and go into the concert hall with the dummy
head and study live sound and what it is about it that is different in "hi
fi" and the rest is history.

Gary

[William Sommerwerck]

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

> High Fidelity magazine, June 1978, Dr Mark Davis, "What's Really
> Important in Loudspeaker Performance?". In a sidebar Davis, Al Foster of
> the
> BAS, Prof. Campbell Searle and graduate student John Bourne experiment
> with
> frequency response and radiation pattern and prove that they can make
> various combinations of small box speakers sound like any other
> speaker they wish. The article is a classic in teaching what is audible
> about
> speakers and should be in everyone's fact store.
>
> /Any/ other speaker? Did they make them sound like a pair of KLH
> Nines? Or QUADs? I don't think so.

They made a set of AR-7s sound like the AR LST and a concoction of 4 small
bookshelf speakers and a Lexicon digital delay system sound like a pair of
901s. Those were just the toughest challenges. There were some others but
they didn't bother to detail all of them. The point was that there is more
to speaker sound than frequency response. They tried at first with an array
of equalizing equipment, but found that was not sufficient to make a match.
----------------------------
That isn't what you said. (See above.)


> Dr Bose proved that the 2201 speaker system could perfectly reproduce
> sound -- that is, what came out of it was indistinguishable from a
> perfect point source at the same position in the room. If you believe
> that...

Glad you asked - they were just going on the legend of the "perfect point
source" that everyone thought was the ideal but unobtainable. It seems
reasonable on first thought - a massless, infinitely small source that puts
out flat response in a 4 pi steradian volume with no distortion, phase
anomolies - no known limitations of real drivers. So they went through this
whole years long project to simulate that and achieved it with the help of
Tom Stockam and his supercomputer and all. So this "beehive" speaker with
God knows how many drivers on an eightth of a sphere in a corner sounds
identical to the spark discharge convolution of music and speech, but when
they play music through them in stereo it still has all of the problems that
they had heard with normal stereo direct firing speakers, so they admit they
were wrong, on the wrong track, and go into the concert hall with the dummy
head and study live sound and what it is about it that is different in "hi
fi" and the rest is history.
------------------------------------
At least you understand what they were trying to do.

There is always the possibility they misinterpreted their own experiment.

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> > William Sommerwerck > wrote:
> >>"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
> >
> >>> No. It's because the diaphragm has low mass compared
> >>> to the air load it's driving.
> >
> >> AND... what is the result of that low mass?
> >
> >>The driver's motion more-closely approximates the signal driving it. Peter
> > Walker discussed this in his early-1980 article on the ESL-63.
> >
> > What exactly do you mean by motion?
> > You know that the drivers ACCELERATION needs to follow the signal, not the
> > displacement and not the velocity.
> > Drivers operate in the mass limited regime.
> > So please be more specific,what is the perceived advantage of reduced
> > mass?
> > I think the advantage you are thinking of has to do with the fact that the
> > force is applied in a distributed fashion rather then centralized at a
> > voice coil.
> > Mark
>
> I think they are working on yet one more misconception, the low mass driver.
> Truth is, it doesn't matter if you are making the sound with a mylar
> diaphragm or a frying pan, all that matters is the frequency response you
> can get from it.
>
> In total, what we can hear from a speaker is its frequency response and
> radiation pattern.
>
> Gary Eickmeier

You are ignoring time domain considerations. Given any particular amount
of power, a lower mass driver offers reduced inertia. Go push a little
red wagon. Now go push your car. Feel any difference? How long did it
take you to get each of those up to 5 MPH?

Why try to reinvent the complicated stuff when the basics still elude
you? Perhaps to justify thinking the Bose 901's are "accurate"? That
puppy ain't housebroke.

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

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:

> "hank alrich" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
> >
> >> It grieves me to have to get so basic with you or anyone else here, but
> >> that
> >> indeed seems to be the whole problem. You may not have thought about this
> >> to
> >> the extent that I have, or it may be the fault of all of the textbooks
> >> and
> >> the magazines about what stereo is, and is not.
> >
> > Did your mama teach you hubris or do you take to it naturally? Of
> > course, only you, of all acousticians in the world, know what's really
> > up. Except you're not an acoustician, right?
> >
> > I return to my earlier view that you cannot learn, because you already
> > know it all. More than the sound from a speaker is illusory here.
>
> Do you have anything to contribute or not?
>
> Gary

No one can contribute anything to you. That's the part you miss. You
already know more than Blumlein, Gerzon, et al. Mind you, I am SUPER
impressed by the depth and extent of your audio knowledge, the breadth
of your live recording experience, and I plan to swap out the monitors
I'm using for a pair of 901's. You're just that good, Gary.

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

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:

> "hank alrich" > wrote in message
> ...
> > William Sommerwerck > wrote:
> >
> >> "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
> >>
> >> > I want it to sound like it sounded when I was in the studio
> >> > in front of the band.
> >>
> >> Horrors! You want the closest approach to the original sound!
> >
> > A worhty goal, in my listening world.
>
> Brilliant. So what does the original sound sound like? Tell me all of the
> factors about the live sound that you can hear. If you need a push, start
> with the frequency response. What else?
>
> Gary

Start with being in the room at the time of the recording and having
that as your reference point. Throw the books aside and get to work.
There's your push. Dance about architeecture, talk about sound.

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

[Gary Eickmeier]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
> ...
>> No Virginia, there is no Santa Claus. Get over it. Just kidding, but
>> the point is no, you cannot make a recording of the Concertgebouw and
>> reproduce it in your home -- even if you know how to spell it...
>
> OH, YES YOU CAN. I did it in at least one recording, made in 1980. If
> you have never made ambient-surround orchestral recordings, you do
> not have the experience to properly evaluate your theories.
>
> Gary, you do not have the experience to properly discuss what you are
> talking about. You think, and think, and think -- but ultimately you
> have to do. And until you start doing, there is no point in
> discussing this.

William -

I don't know where you got that idea. If you have been reading this forum, I
have joined it because I want to learn all about recording. I have harrassed
Scott and all of them to glean their experience because they are recording
professionals and maybe I can short circuit the long learning process by
asking a few questions. I went through my spaced omni period, my MS period,
tried XY coincident and ORT-F, settled on a layout that I sort of invented
with three closely spaced cardioids, AT-2050s, into a multi track Zoom H6
digital recorder. I then edit with Audition 2 and make CDs and play the
result on my big system to check the results and restart the feedback
process all over again. I wanted to do recording so that I knew exactly what
was going in to check what was coming out.

I am on my fourth and final prototype speaker design, the IMP-1, that may be
able to demo everything I am talking about. It is a topology that has never
been done before, a combination of the radiation patterns of the 901 and the
Soundfield One. It will have the spaciousness of the 901, the
distance/intensity trading effect of the Soundfield, and the precision
imaging of a Quad or Maggie. All of those factors are quantifiable and
repeatable if you know what causes them in a speaker/room interface.

ONE more way of explaining the idea might be to imagine a "sound knife" that
can split the recorded sound into the direct sound - the imaging part - and
the reflected part that was recorded - the spatial part. The direct part
should be played on direct sound speakers. The reflected part should be
played back by reflecting it from wider and deeper than that direct part. We
find that by combining some direct and reflected in the right proportions,
you can have the best of both worlds. Trick is you have to proportion them
just right and you have to know how to place the speakers to get the
reflected part just right and keep it from screwing up everything.

We all have a little bit of the full effect of this if we keep the speakers
out in free space away from the walls and don't kill that part too much with
Sonex. Quads and Maggies and such sound like they do because they get a
little more of these effects. The most surprising part is that you acutally
need more of the reflected than the direct, and it does NOT screw everything
up if you do it right. It should have the same freq response as the direct
so that it integrates nice and it needs to be in a certain pattern, or
model, or matrix, or ahape.

It's all done with mirrors. I WILL show you.

Gary

[[email protected]]

>You are ignoring time domain considerations. Given any particular amount of >power, a lower mass driver offers reduced inertia. Go push a little red wagon. >Now go push your car. Feel any difference? How long did it take you to get each >of those up to 5 MPH?

The analagoy works only to a point.
For a given avaialble power, a low mass diaphragm will have more acceleration and therefore create a higher SPL but this is true over the a range of frequencies.

In other words, lower mass can allow for better efficency but not directly to an extended frequency response.

Even a low mass diaphram is in the mass limited region and the displacement goes down with frequency at 6dB/octave.

Mark

[Gary Eickmeier]

Well, there you go again...

Me friend, not enemy Hank. We are all after the same things. I have learned
a lot about recording here. May I not contribute some things that I have
learned to the group? Can you not grant me the respect and sincerity
necessary for communication? What I am saying is not contradictory to
anything that you know for sure, just adds to it.

Gary


"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>
>> "hank alrich" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>> >
>> >> It grieves me to have to get so basic with you or anyone else here,
>> >> but
>> >> that
>> >> indeed seems to be the whole problem. You may not have thought about
>> >> this
>> >> to
>> >> the extent that I have, or it may be the fault of all of the textbooks
>> >> and
>> >> the magazines about what stereo is, and is not.
>> >
>> > Did your mama teach you hubris or do you take to it naturally? Of
>> > course, only you, of all acousticians in the world, know what's really
>> > up. Except you're not an acoustician, right?
>> >
>> > I return to my earlier view that you cannot learn, because you already
>> > know it all. More than the sound from a speaker is illusory here.
>>
>> Do you have anything to contribute or not?
>>
>> Gary
>
> No one can contribute anything to you. That's the part you miss. You
> already know more than Blumlein, Gerzon, et al. Mind you, I am SUPER
> impressed by the depth and extent of your audio knowledge, the breadth
> of your live recording experience, and I plan to swap out the monitors
> I'm using for a pair of 901's. You're just that good, Gary.
>
> --
> shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
> HankandShaidriMusic.Com
> YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic
>

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:13:42 -0800 (PST), wrote:

>>You are ignoring time domain considerations. Given any particular amount of >power, a lower mass driver offers reduced inertia. Go push a little red wagon. >Now go push your car. Feel any difference? How long did it take you to get each >of those up to 5 MPH?
>
>The analagoy works only to a point.
>For a given avaialble power, a low mass diaphragm will have more acceleration and therefore create a higher SPL but this is true over the a range of frequencies.
>
>In other words, lower mass can allow for better efficency but not directly to an extended frequency response.
>
>Even a low mass diaphram is in the mass limited region and the displacement goes down with frequency at 6dB/octave.
>
>Mark

The effective mass of the cone is made up of two parts. The first is
easy, the actual moving mass which you can measure with a scale. To
this you need to add the mass of air, given by the empirical formula:

0.479 * rho * ( pi r squared) ^ (3/2)

Where rho is the density of air. For a 12 inch driver this comes to 11
grams. So trying to get far below this mark is a matter of diminishing
returns. Once you have matched that 11 grams, you have a potential
extra 3dB to win.

d

[William Sommerwerck]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...

> Well, there you go again...
> Me friend, not enemy Hank. We are all after the same things.

No, we are not after the same things. You are one of a multitude who is
constantly trying to tear down, crush, destroy to concept of high fidelity
sound recording and playback.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 19:03:32 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:13:42 -0800 (PST), wrote:
>
>>>You are ignoring time domain considerations. Given any particular amount of >power, a lower mass driver offers reduced inertia. Go push a little red wagon. >Now go push your car. Feel any difference? How long did it take you to get each >of those up to 5 MPH?
>>
>>The analagoy works only to a point.
>>For a given avaialble power, a low mass diaphragm will have more acceleration and therefore create a higher SPL but this is true over the a range of frequencies.
>>
>>In other words, lower mass can allow for better efficency but not directly to an extended frequency response.
>>
>>Even a low mass diaphram is in the mass limited region and the displacement goes down with frequency at 6dB/octave.
>>
>>Mark
>
>The effective mass of the cone is made up of two parts. The first is
>easy, the actual moving mass which you can measure with a scale. To
>this you need to add the mass of air, given by the empirical formula:
>
>0.479 * rho * ( pi r squared) ^ (3/2)
>
>Where rho is the density of air. For a 12 inch driver this comes to 11
>grams. So trying to get far below this mark is a matter of diminishing
>returns. Once you have matched that 11 grams, you have a potential
>extra 3dB to win.
>
>d

Oops, silly me. That is the air mass on one side of the diaphragm. You
need to double that, so 22 grams for a 12 inch driver. The air is
starting to look quite heavy in comparison to a decent cone.

d

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:

> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
> ...
> > There's a ST:NG episode in which a strange alien is introduced who takes a
> > liking to Will Crusher, seeing in him a great engineering mind -- and
> > possible metaphysician. (The intent was to create a series-long story arc,
> > which ended when Will eventually left with the alien in a much-later
> > episode.)
> >
> > This traveller is has a human companion who claims to be able to
> > significantly improve warp-drive performance. His explanations of what
> > he's doing are rejected as gobbledydegook by the Enterprise's crew. Which
> > is rather amusing, because warp drive (as it is implemented in Star Trek)
> > is itself gobbledydegook.
> >
> > Do I make my point, Gary?
>
> Yes William, unfortunately you do. This spatial stuff is completely
> incomprehensible to most dyed in the wool audio old timers who have been
> taught all of the old saws about the primacy of the direct sound, just aim
> it at your face and you will hear stereo. You don't even hear a word I am
> saying.
>
> Gary

You cast aside that which counters your own preconceptions here. The
heck with "old saws" and "old timers", in spite of my age. You are dead
set on your own concepts, most of which appear to run against both
foundation science and intelligently perceptive listening.

You have a particular listening preference that you seek to establish as
a more accurate form of sound reproduction. That those old timers use
their old saws to reduce your flimsy construct to sawdust is not
surprising to those who have done a lot of work in the field.

You have llitle idea how big a warning badge those Boses are.

I have no problem with anyone saying they like the sound of listening to
their 901's. That's down to taste, and when I've been in the presence of
such systems I have always managed to enjoy the music, even as I enjoy
the music offered by old Lomax field recordings.

When anyone starts touting that the Bose system is accurate it's time
for some of us to break out the hip waders and start shoveling the
bull**** aside.

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

[nickbatz]

On Thursday, January 16, 2014 1:33:45 AM UTC-8, Luxey wrote:

> Humans do not listen with their ears only. They have brain involved in the process.

Exactly. And that's why you can't apply all the same concepts to monitoring with ears that you can to recording with mics.

> Turning the whole room into a source is not a bad idea, but doing it by wall reflections can only make >the representation of original sound stage (I'll keep to avoid hearing images, as I do already for some 20 >years) less accurate, although it may come as more pleasing and easier to listen to.

That's the part that you - or anyone else with his or antenna up - can only back away from if you hear speakers with acoustic lenses.

It really isn't subtle - I promise you will hear this right away!

[Gary Eickmeier]

Dear Hank,

THIS IS NOT ABOUT BOSE 901S.

Gary Eickmeier

[Gary Eickmeier]

Dear Hank,

THIS IS NOT ABOUT BOSE 901S.

Gary Eickmeier

[Gary Eickmeier]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...
>
>> Well, there you go again...
>> Me friend, not enemy Hank. We are all after the same things.
>
> No, we are not after the same things. You are one of a multitude who is
> constantly trying to tear down, crush, destroy to concept of high fidelity
> sound recording and playback.

Well Will, all I can say is if that is my goal I am certainly working hard
in the opposite direction, building speakers, writing papers, learning and
developing recording techniques and reading everything I can on audio,
paying my dues to the AES and BAS. Did I mention my home in Florida that was
built around a dedicated audio/video room? Done for enjoyment plus research
into my spatial audio theories. They still have major AES conferences on the
subject, so I think it is a worthy area to study.

However, all I came here for this time was to ask if anyone had heard the
Beolab 5s, which Thankfully Nick has, and gave a great report that confirms
my observations. But maybe he is trying to destroy high fidelity too.

Gary

[Luxey]

петак, 17. јануар 2014. 01.17.17 UTC+1, nickbatz је напи�ао/ла:
> On Thursday, January 16, 2014 1:33:45 AM UTC-8, Luxey wrote:
>
>
>
> > Humans do not listen with their ears only. They have brain involved in the process.
>
>
>
> Exactly. And that's why you can't apply all the same concepts to monitoring with ears that you can to recording with mics.
>
>
>
> > Turning the whole room into a source is not a bad idea, but doing it by wall reflections can only make >the representation of original sound stage (I'll keep to avoid hearing images, as I do already for some 20 >years) less accurate, although it may come as more pleasing and easier to listen to.
>
>
>
> That's the part that you - or anyone else with his or antenna up - can only back away from if you hear speakers with acoustic lenses.
>
>
>
> It really isn't subtle - I promise you will hear this right away!

Nick,

you may be right, I don't know, but, as far as I know, acousticaal lense is not some random of the wall reflection, like this system, Gary is proposing, seam to be.

And again to Gary, I won't quote, so don't jump on words, what he setss up in his room, it may be working, there, in his room, as it was set up. Maybe he could get into busines of building ssome "listening capsules", with reflections highly controled in time/ freq ... domain and crap, but that's not what he's saying here. His claim is the magic is somehow a property of speaker (he is already building one, issn't he, curently at version 007, or so), regardless of the room, while at the saame time, too often he already stressed the room is imposing own charachteristics on the sound ... blah blah. Quite a dichotomy. Bad room - I'll aim speakers at the wall?! And to prove it, I set up my room in quite a peculiar way?! I mean, where are the speakers in that story?

[Tom McCreadie]

On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 11:50:25 -0800 (PST), Luxey > wrote:

>?????, 17. ?????? 2014. 01.17.17 UTC+1, nickbatz ?? ???????/??:
>> On Thursday, January 16, 2014 1:33:45 AM UTC-8, Luxey wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Humans do not listen with their ears only. They have brain involved in the process.
>>
>>
>>
>> Exactly. And that's why you can't apply all the same concepts to monitoring with ears that you can to recording with mics.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Turning the whole room into a source is not a bad idea, but doing it by wall reflections can only make >the representation of original sound stage (I'll keep to avoid hearing images, as I do already for some 20 >years) less accurate, although it may come as more pleasing and easier to listen to.
>>
>>
>>
>> That's the part that you - or anyone else with his or antenna up - can only back away from if you hear speakers with acoustic lenses.
>>
>>
>>
>> It really isn't subtle - I promise you will hear this right away!
>
>Nick,
>
>you may be right, I don't know, but, as far as I know, acousticaal lense is not some random of the wall reflection, like this system, Gary is proposing, seam to be.
>
>And again to Gary, I won't quote, so don't jump on words, what he setss up in his room, it may be working, there, in his room, as it was set up. Maybe he could get into busines of building ssome "listening capsules", with reflections highly controled in time/ freq ... domain and crap, but that's not what he's saying here. His claim is the magic is somehow a property of speaker (he is already building one, issn't he, curently at version 007, or so), regardless of the room, while at the saame time, too often he already stressed the room is imposing own charachteristics on the sound ... blah blah. Quite a dichotomy. Bad room - I'll aim speakers at the wall?! And to prove it, I set up my room in quite a peculiar way?! I mean, where are the speakers in that story?

OT, Luxey, but I need an airline ticket to reach the end of the text lines in
the postings from you and nickbatz. Methinks Google Groups is the culprit.
Or had you been playing too much (non word-w)rap music in speaker testing? :-)

(Now there's a thought for Gary...using non-wrapped text to measure the
strength of his room reflections.)

__
Tom McCreadie

[William Sommerwerck]

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

>> No, we are not after the same things. You are one of a multitude who is
>> constantly trying to tear down, crush, destroy the concept of high fidelity
>> sound recording and playback.

> Well Will, all I can say is if that is my goal I am certainly working hard
> in the opposite direction, building speakers, writing papers, learning and
> developing recording techniques and reading everything I can on audio,
> paying my dues to the AES and BAS. Did I mention my home in Florida that was
> built around a dedicated audio/video room? Done for enjoyment plus research
> into my spatial audio theories. They still have major AES conferences on the
> subject, so I think it is a worthy area to study.

I would be curious to hear your home system. l'm reasonably certain that most
members of this group would agree that, given good program material, the
output of my system at least somewhat resembles live sound.

[Luxey]

петак, 17. јануар 2014. 21.53.06 UTC+1, Tom McCreadie је напи�ао/ла:
> OT, Luxey, but I need an airline ticket to reach the end of the text lines in
>
> the postings from you and nickbatz. Methinks Google Groups is the culprit..

When I look at my own text it looks OK, but when people quote me, it all ends
long winding and incomprehensible.

I'll try to press enter key more often, but as you said, I think I already do it
enough, and Google groups is actually responsible.

[hank alrich]

Tom McCreadie > wrote:

> (Now there's a thought for Gary...using non-wrapped text to measure the
> strength of his room reflections.)

Is there an app for that?


<g>

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

[jason]

On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 08:46:33 -0800 "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote in article <lb3plc$loj$1@dont-
email.me>
>

Phew. After all this I think I'll dust off my faithful Stax headphones
and henceforth listen only in dead-center mono to everything. It's so
much simpler. Besides, I sorta like that all that I hear seems to eminate
from a pinpoint spot right between my ears. The whole orchestra is there;
nothing is ambiguous.

[Trevor]

"Jason" > wrote in message
...
> Phew. After all this I think I'll dust off my faithful Stax headphones
> and henceforth listen only in dead-center mono to everything. It's so
> much simpler. Besides, I sorta like that all that I hear seems to eminate
> from a pinpoint spot right between my ears. The whole orchestra is there;
> nothing is ambiguous.

Why does it have to be mono? Headphones eliminate room reflection and
standing wave problems in any case.
I do think some people place too great an emphasis on apparent
imaging/placement rather than acurate frequency response and low distortion,
but each to their own.

Trevor.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...


> Start with being in the room at the time of the recording and having
> that as your reference point. Throw the books aside and get to work.
> There's your push. Dance about architeecture, talk about sound.

Hank I have been talking about my recording questions and techniques for
maybe a couple of years now, in this group. Are you OK?

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> Tom McCreadie > wrote:
>
>> (Now there's a thought for Gary...using non-wrapped text to measure the
>> strength of his room reflections.)
>
> Is there an app for that?

I don't know why in this day and age it is so hard to get the programs to
format text properly. Some of them will turn perfectly readable text into a
super tall post with about three words per line. Sommerwerck's replies do
not quote previous posts properly. I sent hime an app for that called OE
Quotefix, but it is a little hard to use. I have a unique problem at work
where our newest Windows 7 computer shrinks the text on one of our programs
to tinier than readable on a screen.

Hmph.

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...


> I would be curious to hear your home system. l'm reasonably certain that
> most members of this group would agree that, given good program material,
> the output of my system at least somewhat resembles live sound.

I am in Central Florida, not far from the Disney empire and Busch Gardens
and such. But wait until my final prototypes are built and dialed in. I
could send you some pictures.

Gary

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> Why am I obliged to respond ... ?

You're not. Maybe it's a compulsion, or maybe you just like the sound
of your own keyboard's clickey-clack.

If you get identical impulse responses from two speakers at a single
microphone location in an anechoic chamber, you can learn a great deal
about how the speakers compare. For instance, as Dorsey said, you can
learn a lot about distortion characteristics, and other
nonlinearities. And of course, frequency response in magnitude and
phase. But that isn't enough to tell whether they will sound the same,
unless you're restricting your listening to one ear in a fixed
location in an anechoic environment. Is that what anyone does?

Off-axis response is a huge part of how a speaker sounds. Real
listening is done in real rooms, and reflections, especially of
off-axis energy, have a huge effect on how a speaker sounds. That's
the basis for the thread. Comparing a single on-axis impulse response
of one speaker to a single on-axis impulse response of another speaker
is simply an inadequate way of telling whether they will sound the
same in an actual listening environment.

[None]

"Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
...
>
> "hank alrich" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Tom McCreadie > wrote:
>>
>>> (Now there's a thought for Gary...using non-wrapped text to
>>> measure the
>>> strength of his room reflections.)
>>
>> Is there an app for that?
>
> I don't know why in this day and age it is so hard to get the
> programs to format text properly. Some of them will turn perfectly
> readable text into a super tall post with about three words per
> line. Sommerwerck's replies do not quote previous posts properly. I
> sent hime an app for that called OE Quotefix, but it is a little
> hard to use. I have a unique problem at work where our newest
> Windows 7 computer shrinks the text on one of our programs to tinier
> than readable on a screen.

Some people blame their newsreaders for their failures. If you choose
to use Gurgle Gropes or any other crap newsreader, it's your choice
that's the problem, not the reader. I use a crap newsreader that
thinks I should top-post. If I top-posted, it would not be Live Mail's
fault; it would be my own fault. I've seen people cry that they could
not post properly, because their newsreader wouldn't allow it. But in
most cases, it's because they use a program that doesn't do it
automatically, and they're too lazy to do it manually (but their
reader would allow it).

[William Sommerwerck]

"None" wrote in message
m...
"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...

>> Why am I obliged to respond ... ?

> You're not. Maybe it's a compulsion, or maybe you just like the sound of
> your own keyboard's clickey-clack.

The latter. I have one of those magnificent buckling-spring keyboards.


> If you get identical impulse responses from two speakers at a single
> microphone location in an anechoic chamber, you can learn a great deal
> about how the speakers compare. For instance, as Dorsey said, you can
> learn a lot about distortion characteristics, and other nonlinearities.
> And of course, frequency response in magnitude and phase. But that isn't
> enough to tell whether they will sound the same, unless you're restricting
> your listening to one ear in a fixed location in an anechoic environment.
> Is that what anyone does?

It's what we do when we listen with headphones. Those who claim the extreme
importance of off-axis response need to explain why electrostatic and
planar-dynamic headphones have generally superior sound quality.

Smooth, broad, off-axis response isn't "wrong", but it's a red herring. It
tends to ignore the question of the /speaker's/ accuracy (as opposed to what
we hear in the listening room).

[Frank Stearns]

"None" > writes:

>"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
>> Why am I obliged to respond ... ?

>You're not. Maybe it's a compulsion, or maybe you just like the sound
>of your own keyboard's clickey-clack.

>If you get identical impulse responses from two speakers at a single
>microphone location in an anechoic chamber, you can learn a great deal
>about how the speakers compare. For instance, as Dorsey said, you can
>learn a lot about distortion characteristics, and other
>nonlinearities. And of course, frequency response in magnitude and
>phase. But that isn't enough to tell whether they will sound the same,
>unless you're restricting your listening to one ear in a fixed
>location in an anechoic environment. Is that what anyone does?

>Off-axis response is a huge part of how a speaker sounds. Real
>listening is done in real rooms, and reflections, especially of
>off-axis energy, have a huge effect on how a speaker sounds. That's
>the basis for the thread. Comparing a single on-axis impulse response
>of one speaker to a single on-axis impulse response of another speaker
>is simply an inadequate way of telling whether they will sound the
>same in an actual listening environment.


Excellent points, and don't forget how cabinet geometry also interacts with off-axis
driver response. (You perhaps implied this in your statement.)

And (for Gary) this is why, in part, a LEDE room can sound so phenominal -- when
done CORRECTLY with the right drivers. You eliminate a whole set of unwanted,
difficult-to-manage variables when you remove cabinet diffraction and wonky off-axis
artifacts. Concentrate then on the quality of the drivers, and the care with which
you re-introduce diffusion and just a small touch of reflection from the live end.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[jason]

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:31:06 +1100 "Trevor" > wrote in
article >
>

>
> Why does it have to be mono?

Can you spell facetious? (I'm not sure I can...)

[jason]

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 14:18:36 -0500 "Jason" > wrote
in article >
>
> On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:31:06 +1100 "Trevor" > wrote in
> article >
> >
>
> >
> > Why does it have to be mono?
>
> Can you spell facetious? (I'm not sure I can...)

Not entirely facetious... I love listening with headphones. It dates way
back to my early ham radio days when I found that I could pull out very
faint CW signals wearing headphones that I simply couldn't hear otherwise
- it was my preferred way to listen and still is. Later, working at radio
stations, I always preferred 'phones to speakers since it was my task to
tweak the broadcast audio and, despite admonitions to the contrary about
how it "should" sound on car radio speakers, I found I could make the
most sense of the sound with a pair of good headphones.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Frank Stearns" > wrote in message
acquisition...


> And (for Gary) this is why, in part, a LEDE room can sound so
> phenominal -- when
> done CORRECTLY with the right drivers. You eliminate a whole set of
> unwanted,
> difficult-to-manage variables when you remove cabinet diffraction and
> wonky off-axis
> artifacts. Concentrate then on the quality of the drivers, and the care
> with which
> you re-introduce diffusion and just a small touch of reflection from the
> live end.
>
> Frank
> Mobile Audio

I can't say much about LEDE because I haven't heard one. All I can tell you
is that the more important pattern of reflections are the ones around the
orchestra, not back in the back of the room.

Gary

[Frank Stearns]

"Gary Eickmeier" > writes:


>"Frank Stearns" > wrote in message
acquisition...


>> And (for Gary) this is why, in part, a LEDE room can sound so
>> phenominal -- when
>> done CORRECTLY with the right drivers. You eliminate a whole set of
>> unwanted,
>> difficult-to-manage variables when you remove cabinet diffraction and
>> wonky off-axis
>> artifacts. Concentrate then on the quality of the drivers, and the care
>> with which
>> you re-introduce diffusion and just a small touch of reflection from the
>> live end.
>>
>> Frank
>> Mobile Audio

>I can't say much about LEDE because I haven't heard one. All I can tell you
>is that the more important pattern of reflections are the ones around the
>orchestra, not back in the back of the room.

Well, this is where there's trouble. *In NO WAY* are most of us trying to concoct a
concert hall analog, using the same speed of sound propogation, in a room that's
several hundred times smaller than the original hall. So forget doing that from the
front, sides, or back.

You preserve those original spacial cues, hopefully captured by a good recording,
and leave them UNMOLESTED for at least 20-30 mS, maybe more. The DE of the LEDE
helps do this in a number of ways.

But as most have agreed, a completely anechoic listening space is certainly no
practical nor pleasant solution. So the LE of the LEDE introduces some later
liveness, late enough so that initial cue information is not smeared, comb-filtered,
masked, or swamped by near-wall early reflections. But the LE of the LEDE is _NOT_
there to emulate some aspect of a concert hall!!!

Getting the right balance of LE information is tricky business. If you've heard a
LEDE you don't like, that's likely the reason -- hasn't been done right.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

> I can't say much about LEDE because I haven't heard one. All I can
> tell you is that the more important pattern of reflections are the
> ones around the orchestra, not back in the back of the room.

Just why are you so hellbent on obfuscating them in the reproduction then?

> Gary

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Trevor]

"Jason" > wrote in message
...
>> > Why does it have to be mono?
>>
>> Can you spell facetious? (I'm not sure I can...)

:-)

> Not entirely facetious... I love listening with headphones. It dates way
> back to my early ham radio days when I found that I could pull out very
> faint CW signals wearing headphones that I simply couldn't hear otherwise
> - it was my preferred way to listen and still is. Later, working at radio
> stations, I always preferred 'phones to speakers since it was my task to
> tweak the broadcast audio and, despite admonitions to the contrary about
> how it "should" sound on car radio speakers, I found I could make the
> most sense of the sound with a pair of good headphones.

Well yes I agree, but headphones have been stereo for quite a while now,
still not sure why it has to be mono?
The only problem I encounter is that amazingly in this day of far larger use
of headphones/earbuds than ever, some material is produced out of phase and
sounds truly weird, and not at all like they were trying for that effect :-(
And when it is only part of the material out of phase, converting to mono is
no solution.

Trevor.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
k...
> Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
>> I can't say much about LEDE because I haven't heard one. All I can
>> tell you is that the more important pattern of reflections are the
>> ones around the orchestra, not back in the back of the room.
>
> Just why are you so hellbent on obfuscating them in the reproduction then?

But this is the nub of the whole argument, theory, philosophy, choice,
decision, or whatever. The base question is how does stereo work, what is
the correct stereo theory. I invented the Image Model Theory to honor the
concept of a field-type system, which is what the Bell Labs people said it
was in the first place, but we have forgotten.

You guys want it to work like binaural, with the pure sound from two
channels going into your two ears and "fooling" your brain into hearing some
recorded space. But I am telling you that the major difference is that once
the crosstalk is there again and your ears are free to hear all spatial
qualities of all real sources in your room, the game changes from direct
sensory input to the reconstruction of the sound fields that were recorded
by the placement of sound events within the new space.

I don't really want to go into all that all over again. Just maybe check off
for me whether you understand the difference in those two approaches, or
theories, but just choose to go with the binaural one.

Gary

[Luxey]

Well, Gary, would you care to present that theory? I mean, is it realy a theory,
or you have some vaague idea "there must be something about it, evrybody missed allong the way"?
For strters, what would you do to make most averaage Joes, in
their average living rooms, percieve original space of performance more
accurately than with contemporary, standard multi channel systems, including 2ch
stereo, without construction works on the building/ room it self?

[None]

"Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
...
> You guys want it to work like binaural, with the pure sound from two
> channels going into your two ears and "fooling" your brain into
> hearing some recorded space.

I don't think anyone has been saying that they "want it to work like
binaural".

That's a straw man of your own invention, and you are to be
congratulated for constructing it so feebly that you can save the
audio world by vanquishing it.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
...

> You guys want it to work like binaural, with the pure sound from
> two channels going into your two ears and "fooling" your brain
> into hearing some recorded space.

But that's //exactly// how virtually every "stereo" recording system works.
Most are based on presenting directional cues that the ear and brain convert
into a mental image.

A "real" image would require wavefront reconstruction. It isn't likely this
will ever become economically practical.

Your Image Model Theory isn't based on any acoustic principles I'm aware of.
It appears to be wishful thinking. Until you can give a practical
demonstration that Image Model Theory brings us //closer to the original
sound// -- euphony won't cut it -- no one owes it or you any respect.

I can't put it more bluntly without being out-and-out rude.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Luxey" > wrote in message
...
> Well, Gary, would you care to present that theory? I mean, is it realy a
> theory,
> or you have some vaague idea "there must be something about it, evrybody
> missed allong the way"?
> For strters, what would you do to make most averaage Joes, in
> their average living rooms, percieve original space of performance more
> accurately than with contemporary, standard multi channel systems,
> including 2ch
> stereo, without construction works on the building/ room it self?

I presented it in 1989.

I am not interested in Average Joe's listening room. I am just talking pure
theory, pursuing the ultimate presentation of standard two channel
recordings.

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> You guys want it to work like binaural, with the pure sound from
>> two channels going into your two ears and "fooling" your brain
>> into hearing some recorded space.
>
> But that's //exactly// how virtually every "stereo" recording system
> works. Most are based on presenting directional cues that the ear and
> brain convert into a mental image.
>
> A "real" image would require wavefront reconstruction. It isn't likely
> this will ever become economically practical.
>
> Your Image Model Theory isn't based on any acoustic principles I'm aware
> of. It appears to be wishful thinking. Until you can give a practical
> demonstration that Image Model Theory brings us //closer to the original
> sound// -- euphony won't cut it -- no one owes it or you any respect.
>
> I can't put it more bluntly without being out-and-out rude.

Williami do you have a copy of my Mars paper?

Gary

[Luxey]

понедељак, 20. јануар 2014. 06.34.48 UTC+1, Gary Eickmeier је напи�ао/ла:
> "Luxey" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Well, Gary, would you care to present that theory? I mean, is it realy a
>
> > theory,
>
> > or you have some vaague idea "there must be something about it, evrybody
>
> > missed allong the way"?
>
> > For strters, what would you do to make most averaage Joes, in
>
> > their average living rooms, percieve original space of performance more
>
> > accurately than with contemporary, standard multi channel systems,
>
> > including 2ch
>
> > stereo, without construction works on the building/ room it self?
>
>
>
> I presented it in 1989.
>
>
>
> I am not interested in Average Joe's listening room. I am just talking pure
>
> theory, pursuing the ultimate presentation of standard two channel
>
> recordings.
>
>
>
> Gary

In that case, I must say, hypothetically, there may be a way to achieve better
representation of original space than possible by widely accepted techniques
of recording and reproduction. Now all we need is the theory and the proof
of it.

[Gary Eickmeier]

Luxey wrote:

> In that case, I must say, hypothetically, there may be a way to
> achieve better representation of original space than possible by
> widely accepted techniques of recording and reproduction. Now all we
> need is the theory and the proof
> of it.

Ralph Glasgal with his Ambiophonics system in his big room probably has the
best current attempt at that, but he is doing binaural and has to sit in the
sweet spot. He can play stereo recordings on it, but it is really not ideal
for that.

I am after the best stereophonic, meaning anything from two channels to 7.1
discrete surround. Will have it very soon!

Gary

[Luxey]

Hopefully, you'll come with some better explanation than this, I found on
Ambiophonic site:

.... For example, 2 microphones spaced 7 inches apart will capture a time
difference of about 700 microseconds for a side source and this is what will be
stored on the LP or CD; but when played back stereophonically this time delay
will be reduced to about 220 microseconds and such a source will no longer be
heard at the far side ....

What?!!! How come stereo reduce the time it took the sound to come from the
source to a microphone? If it arrived later, later it was recorded. Later it will be reproduced.

I read the broader explanation, too, and it really sounded to me as a lots of
garbage talk about out of phase signals used to widen stereo image. Put two
speakers next to each other, tweak the phase, and the image will jump out of
the speakers, we all did that, and we all thought, for a moment, it sounded
really good, haven't we?

I even had an SPL Vitalizer for a while, and I still
think it did a great job. Sometimes I regret selling it.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Luxey" wrote in message
...

> In that case, I must say, hypothetically, there may be a way
> to achieve better representation of original space than possible
> by widely accepted techniques of recording and reproduction.
> Now all we need is the theory and the proof of it.

We already have the systems, their theories, and the proofs.

For speaker reproduction, it's called Ambisonics, and has been around 40
years. It's thoroughly grounded in known psychoacoustic principles, not
wishful thinking.

For headphone reproduction, it's called "binaural".

Despite Gary's demurring, it's interesting that some types of quasi-binaural
speaker reproduction of non-binaural material can be quite good. Many years
ago I tested the Carver "Sonic Hologram" [sic], and was amazed at how it made
my own single-point live recordings sound much more like what I heard at the
mikes.

Even conventional recording has dramatically improved. Listen to the new
Jacobs' performance of Bach's "Mass in b-minor" in surround, and see what you
think.

[Luxey]

Thank you, I'm well aware of Ambisonics and Binaural.

[Frank Stearns]

Luxey > writes:

-snips-

>I even had an SPL Vitalizer for a while, and I still
>think it did a great job. Sometimes I regret selling it.

I demo'd the hardware version and liked it, but did not care for the
"pass through" coloration (might have been the age of the unit).

SPL does have a software version, beautifully modeled, that does all the good things
the Vitalizer can do but without the coloration. So, you might be able to get back
the function without the fuss.

And, as you probably know, a tiny little bit of its processing can go a long way...

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Gary Eickmeier]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "Luxey" wrote in message
> ...
>
>> In that case, I must say, hypothetically, there may be a way
>> to achieve better representation of original space than possible
>> by widely accepted techniques of recording and reproduction.
>> Now all we need is the theory and the proof of it.
>
> We already have the systems, their theories, and the proofs.
>
> For speaker reproduction, it's called Ambisonics, and has been around 40
> years. It's thoroughly grounded in known psychoacoustic principles, not
> wishful thinking.
>
> For headphone reproduction, it's called "binaural".
>
> Despite Gary's demurring, it's interesting that some types of
> quasi-binaural speaker reproduction of non-binaural material can be quite
> good. Many years ago I tested the Carver "Sonic Hologram" [sic], and was
> amazed at how it made my own single-point live recordings sound much more
> like what I heard at the mikes.
>
> Even conventional recording has dramatically improved. Listen to the new
> Jacobs' performance of Bach's "Mass in b-minor" in surround, and see what
> you think.

In my categorizing of the different auditory perspective systems Ambisonics
would come down on the stereophonic side rather than the binaural side. The
recordings are made with a single point mike array, not a dummy head with
ear spacing mikes and just two channels.

It probably is a great surround sound scheme, but all I ever had to try it
some 30 years ago was a breadboard circuit with wires hanging. What are you
playing it on? And where are you getting recordings?

Gary

[William Sommerwerck]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...

> [Ambisonics] is a great surround sound scheme, but all I ever had
> to try it some 30 years ago was a breadboard circuit with wires
> hanging. What are you playing it on? And where are you getting
> recordings?

I have a six-speaker Apogee/Parasound system. The decoder comes from Canada.
(It's no longer made.)

There was a time when almost all Nimbus recordings were Ambisonic. (I don't
know if they still are.) I have tons of them. I made a few live recordings on
four-channel tape using a discrete mike array.

[Luxey]

Thank's Frank. I'll check it out. I was really satisfied with it, but at one point I got rid of all the (hardware) outboard and went the software way.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Luxey" > wrote in message
...
> Hopefully, you'll come with some better explanation than this, I found on
> Ambiophonic site:
>
> ... For example, 2 microphones spaced 7 inches apart will capture a time
> difference of about 700 microseconds for a side source and this is what
> will be
> stored on the LP or CD; but when played back stereophonically this time
> delay
> will be reduced to about 220 microseconds and such a source will no longer
> be
> heard at the far side ....
>
> What?!!! How come stereo reduce the time it took the sound to come from
> the
> source to a microphone? If it arrived later, later it was recorded. Later
> it will be reproduced.
>
> I read the broader explanation, too, and it really sounded to me as a lots
> of
> garbage talk about out of phase signals used to widen stereo image. Put
> two
> speakers next to each other, tweak the phase, and the image will jump out
> of
> the speakers, we all did that, and we all thought, for a moment, it
> sounded
> really good, haven't we?
>
> I even had an SPL Vitalizer for a while, and I still
> think it did a great job. Sometimes I regret selling it.

Let me just say that the stereophonic system has nothing to do with the
human hearing mechanism, in either the recording or the reproduction.
Microphones do not need to be ear spaced, and the 700 microseconds and the
220 have nothing to do with the summing localization effect. On playback,
the speaker setup, radiation patterns, and acoustical treatment of the room
have nothing to do with human hearing.

What they DO have to do with is sound in rooms. If the task is to simply
make the same sound patterns in the playback room, then anyone or any
creature will hear the sound and its perspective the same way as every other
creature, and none of the recording or reproduction techniques were based on
the spacing of the ears, the pinna effects, or anything that permits you to
hear auditory perspective.

This all works in much the same way as for live sound. Pink Floyd doesn't
have to know anything about your ears or hearing to set up their sound or to
perform on stage. They place the instruments and themselves and any effects
for great sound from where you are sitting.

On playback we place sounds in our rooms by means of placing loudspeakers
that carry those sounds. We don't need one speaker for every instrument
because of the principle of summing localization. This allows us to perceive
the sound anywhere along a line between the speakers and even a little
beyond. The auditory event can be shifted from center to one side with a 1
ms time difference or about a 20 dB level difference if you are on center
line. But you are not limited to two speakers because the number of speakers
and their placement has nothing to do with the spacing of your ears or
anything that is of the binaural system.

Long way to say red herring. Your confusion is because you are thinking of
binaural.

Gary

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:

> "Frank Stearns" > wrote in message
> acquisition...
>
>
> > And (for Gary) this is why, in part, a LEDE room can sound so
> > phenominal -- when
> > done CORRECTLY with the right drivers. You eliminate a whole set of
> > unwanted,
> > difficult-to-manage variables when you remove cabinet diffraction and
> > wonky off-axis
> > artifacts. Concentrate then on the quality of the drivers, and the care
> > with which
> > you re-introduce diffusion and just a small touch of reflection from the
> > live end.
> >
> > Frank
> > Mobile Audio
>
> I can't say much about LEDE because I haven't heard one. All I can tell you
> is that the more important pattern of reflections are the ones around the
> orchestra, not back in the back of the room.
>
> Gary

Hence, LEDE…

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

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:

> "Luxey" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Well, Gary, would you care to present that theory? I mean, is it realy a
> > theory,
> > or you have some vaague idea "there must be something about it, evrybody
> > missed allong the way"?
> > For strters, what would you do to make most averaage Joes, in
> > their average living rooms, percieve original space of performance more
> > accurately than with contemporary, standard multi channel systems,
> > including 2ch
> > stereo, without construction works on the building/ room it self?
>
> I presented it in 1989.
>
> I am not interested in Average Joe's listening room. I am just talking pure
> theory, pursuing the ultimate presentation of standard two channel
> recordings.
>
> Gary

Oh, pure theory sounds great all the time every time. The trouble arises
when it's time to practice.

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

[Luxey]

понедељак, 20. јануар 2014. 18.27.06 UTC+1, Gary Eickmeier је напи�ао/ла:

> Long way to say red herring. Your confusion is because you are thinking of
>
> binaural.

Excuse my confusion Gary, but you failed to explain where and how 700
became 220.
On the other hand, you spent your time lecturing about something nobody asked
for, but thank you any way, it's always nice to be confused, again.

[Luxey]

Ok, I found your blog, your picture and AES paper.

So, Gary, what stood in your way for, soon will be, 25 years, not being able to prove it?

[Gary Eickmeier]

Oh whoops Luxey was talking about Ralph's system and its explanation. Must
re-read the Ambiophonics site and Luxey's questions. Sorry.

Gary


"Luxey" > wrote in message
...
> Hopefully, you'll come with some better explanation than this, I found on
> Ambiophonic site:
>
> ... For example, 2 microphones spaced 7 inches apart will capture a time
> difference of about 700 microseconds for a side source and this is what
> will be
> stored on the LP or CD; but when played back stereophonically this time
> delay
> will be reduced to about 220 microseconds and such a source will no longer
> be
> heard at the far side ....
>
> What?!!! How come stereo reduce the time it took the sound to come from
> the
> source to a microphone? If it arrived later, later it was recorded. Later
> it will be reproduced.
>
> I read the broader explanation, too, and it really sounded to me as a lots
> of
> garbage talk about out of phase signals used to widen stereo image. Put
> two
> speakers next to each other, tweak the phase, and the image will jump out
> of
> the speakers, we all did that, and we all thought, for a moment, it
> sounded
> really good, haven't we?
>
> I even had an SPL Vitalizer for a while, and I still
> think it did a great job. Sometimes I regret selling it.
>

[Gary Eickmeier]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...


> Oh, pure theory sounds great all the time every time. The trouble arises
> when it's time to practice.

Yes, it would be foolish to have arrived at these ideas and not tried them
out in my own dedicated listening room for 30 years. The stumbling block has
been the use of the Bose 901 speakers, which do a fantastic job of it but
most people don't understand what I am doing with them, and hate them from
their experience, and so it is a distraction from my message.

But that will all be fixed soon. Making some ultimate speakers that are NOT
Bose, and will have a degree of adjustability to try some various effects
and see by listening which ideas are correct. Please Email me if you want to
know more.

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Luxey" > wrote in message
...
> Ok, I found your blog, your picture and AES paper.
>
> So, Gary, what stood in your way for, soon will be, 25 years, not being
> able to prove it?

My blog? Oops - I have tried to do a web site but got distracted by the new
speaker project. Please don't use that as a guide. What site are you talking
about anyway?

At first of course the AES reviewer didn't understand my paper. His critique
showed me that he didn't understand a word I said about a field-type system.
So I wrote a second paper, an article really, tongue in cheek look at an
imaginary trip to Mars in which the AES has to go and explain to the
Martians what a field-type system is. The Martians have three ears instead
of two, and have always done all of their music recording using trinaural on
headphones. But their music was incompatible with ours or the other planets,
so something had to be done. The AES introduces them to the stereophonic
system, which is a field-type system on loudspeakers rather than a
head-related system on headphones. It operates in an entirely different
manner on principles that have nothing to do with the human or Martian
hearing system. If you record and reproduce the sound fields that occur in
the room where the performers are making the music, then reconstruct those
patterns in your listening room, then any creature with any number of ears
or different hearing mechinisms will hear the sound the same way they do
live, with their own natural hearing.

I did not submit this anywhere except the BAS Speaker because it is not a
serious research paper, just wanted to write it to get it off my chest.

Since then I have built 3 prototype speakers and built my new home around my
sound room and of course more writing and reading. I thought I made it when
I won the Linkwitz Challenge with my third prototype, a super cheap kludge
of Radio Shack wallspeakers in a box, but the glory passed me by when they
added more data and excluded my speaker and then laughed me out of town - so
to speak.

My prototypes didn't take over the world because I am not very good at
building speakers. So now I am having a real engineer build one last one,
and it is looking very good. That is up in Indiana but he reports on the
progress and it is very encouraging.

All that plus learning recording and having some success thanks to this
group and some more experimentation. You get the whole feedback loop when
you do both recording and reproduction and have full control at both ends
and can learn which variables matter.

Gary Eickmeier

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>
>Dear Hank,
>
>THIS IS NOT ABOUT BOSE 901S.

No, the Bose 901 is only one symptom of the problem that it's about.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

nickbatz > wrote:
>Scott wrote:
>
>>I want it to sound like it sounded when I was I was in the studio in front=
> of the band.
>
>Then you have to use a similar monitoring set-up, of course, and that rules=
> out speakers with acoustic lenses for you.

A similar monitoring setup to _what_?

>Scott also wrote something to the effect that the response of the speakers =
>has to be right otherwise who cares. Well yeah.

Unfortunately the entire high end industry seems to be missing this,
there are a lot of speakers out there with wildly bizarre responses
out there, with people crowing about how wonderfully they image.

>Scott, I haven't heard the B&Os, so maybe they totally suck and are just fu=
>rniture. That seems totally farfetched to me, but I can't say.

No, they aren't bad at all. But they aren't a magic solution to all
problems.

>What I can say is that anyone who makes any comment about speakers with aco=
>ustic lenses and doesn't agree with what I heard is full of ****. :) I know=
> Scott is anything but, but I'm saying that in general. :)

Acoustic lenses are useful things to have, but they are hard to get right,
and they often solve one problem at the expense of another. The same goes
for many directivity control systems like horns. Life is just like that.

>But it does mean that the imaging is quite unlike any other speaker you've =
>ever heard. Screw Bose. Screw Walsh. This is a very different sound, and an=
>yone who's heard it knows in five seconds what I mean. The speakers totally=
> disappear. Of course they should disappear in any good system, but this is=
> something else.

I didn't hear the something else that you heard. Maybe I would again.
Maybe you wouldn't again. Clearly you heard them in a better room than I
did.

>And I don't claim to be as knowledgeable as lots of people here - I'm not -=
> I just know what anyone who has heard these speakers will hear.

I didn't hear that. Oh, well.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
>
>> This is not an argument, though, for adding more and more early
>> reflections
>> in order to overpower the original ambience in the recording, which is
>> what
>> our Bose-loving friend is advocating. Because recordings are not made to
>> be played back under such conditions.
>
>No, that is not what our Bose-loving friend is advocating. See if you can
>understand this:

No, that is EXACTLY what you are advocating even though you claim it is
not the case.

>A single reflection does not make a reverberant field, and if it occurs
>within the fusion time does not make an echo. If using some reflected sound
>from the front and side walls is all that we are doing, and then damping
>those reflections down in the rest of the room in the standard manner, then
>the spatial nature of the frontal sound is all that is changing. From that
>point on, the sound undergoes the same acoustical effects in my system as in
>yours.

Yes, but what in God's name makes you believe that this is beneficial in
any way or does a better job of reproducing the original experience?
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>>> You guys aren't making sense. You claim to disagree with me, then
>>> you print this.
>>
>> Most of what you say doesn't make enough sense to disagree or agree
>> with in any way. Your inability to understand the most basic
>> concepts of stereophony hamper your ability to make any arguments
>> with regard to dispersion.
>
>What are you talking about? What concepts do I not understand?

The entire concept of stereophony. You keep going off on tangents talking
about how people confuse stereo and binaural reproduction and how people
think that there is a direct connection from each speaker to each ear, when
in fact nobody actually does think that and this entire "misconception"
comes only from your mind.

We live in the 21st century where it is very easy to work out the basic
functions of the system between the speaker and the ear through ray tracing
and see the basics of what is going on. Stereo perception is very well
understood.

Your constant harping about how nobody else undestands what is going on and
how you have the only truth for stereophony flies in the face of the fact
that many people have well-set-up monitoring systems in carefully designed
rooms that follow the standardized playback rules for which recordings are
normally intended and that these systems often can reproduce a very good
stereo field.

I have recommended to you a couple of basic introductions to the field
and you have pretty much dismissed them as not knowing what they are talking
about. So at this point it's very hard to do anything else for you.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>
>Mark Davis went carefully through all of these supposed distortions in
>speakers and showed that none of them was audible. His conclusion was as I
>stated, that really all that we can hear about speakers is the frequency
>response and radiation pattern. I would add a couple of refinements to that
>observation, namely power and speaker positioning in the room.

No, he did not. Go back and read the paper.

While you're at it, listen to a 40kc tone on a typical home floorstanding
speaker. Notice how it doesn't sound clean? Now, think about a bassoon.
--scott

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

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> While you're at it, listen to a 40kc tone on a typical home floorstanding
> speaker. Notice how it doesn't sound clean?

You'd need some serious distortion to make a 40kc (40kHz) tone audible to
any human, and obviously not any harmonic distortion either :-)

Trevor.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Gary Eickmeier > wrote:

>>A single reflection does not make a reverberant field, and if it occurs
>>within the fusion time does not make an echo. If using some reflected
>>sound
>>from the front and side walls is all that we are doing, and then damping
>>those reflections down in the rest of the room in the standard manner,
>>then
>>the spatial nature of the frontal sound is all that is changing. From that
>>point on, the sound undergoes the same acoustical effects in my system as
>>in
>>yours.
>
> Yes, but what in God's name makes you believe that this is beneficial in
> any way or does a better job of reproducing the original experience?

The original experience is a huge sound field comprised of the direct, early
reflected, and reverberant sound in the hall or studio. You hear the direct
sound first, followed by the early reflections from points in the hall which
are much wider and deeper than the direct, and finished with the reverberant
field from all around.

What in God's name makes you believe that you can hear any semblance of that
from two points in front of you? By what theory, system, paradigm, or
explanation do you imagine that you can get all of those fields back on
playback from two speakers with just their direct output?

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...


> I didn't hear that. Oh, well.
> --scott

I may have mentioned once or twice or a JILLION times, it depends on how
these speakers are used. Speakers with a high reflected ratio are much more
sensitive to room placement and the acoustics of the room they are in. If
you mis-position them or try to kill their output to the rear and sides,
they can be made to sound horrible. But if you do it right, in the right
room, you get the magic that Nick (and I) are talking about.

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Gary Eickmeier > wrote:

>>What are you talking about? What concepts do I not understand?
>
> The entire concept of stereophony. You keep going off on tangents talking
> about how people confuse stereo and binaural reproduction and how people
> think that there is a direct connection from each speaker to each ear,
> when
> in fact nobody actually does think that and this entire "misconception"
> comes only from your mind.
>
> We live in the 21st century where it is very easy to work out the basic
> functions of the system between the speaker and the ear through ray
> tracing
> and see the basics of what is going on. Stereo perception is very well
> understood.
>
> Your constant harping about how nobody else undestands what is going on
> and
> how you have the only truth for stereophony flies in the face of the fact
> that many people have well-set-up monitoring systems in carefully designed
> rooms that follow the standardized playback rules for which recordings are
> normally intended and that these systems often can reproduce a very good
> stereo field.
>
> I have recommended to you a couple of basic introductions to the field
> and you have pretty much dismissed them as not knowing what they are
> talking
> about. So at this point it's very hard to do anything else for you.
> --scott

Scott -

It is almost entirely a matter of being able to see the spacial "shape" or
image model of the sound fields in front of you. Imagine a listener at the
concert. He sits and listens to an orchestra in front of him, surrounded by
a huge soundstage of early reflections and immersed in a reverberant field
all around him.

Imagine the listener with the stereo in front of him. He hears an orchestral
rendition from two speakers in front of him, of about the same angular width
as the instruments were...

And that's it. No "surrounded by." The entire recording is supposed to be
represented by those two end points and everything in between. Now your
response must tell me by what system, theory, paradigm or explanation he can
get back all of that space from just those two points?

Binaural does it by eliminating the interaural crosstalk. Stereo permits
your natural hearing to hear all real sound sources and their spacial
qualities. If those spacial qualities are different from the original, it
will sound different.

That is NOT high fidelity. That does NOT sound like the original.

Gary

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
> ...

> I may have mentioned once or twice or a JILLION times, it depends on
> how these speakers are used. Speakers with a high reflected ratio are
> much more sensitive to room placement and the acoustics of the room
> they are in. If you mis-position them or try to kill their output to
> the rear and sides, they can be made to sound horrible. But if you do
> it right, in the right room, you get the magic that Nick (and I) are
> talking about.

My system8 project has absolutely wonderful imaging due to its stepped
front. It is however caused by reflections off of the stepped front so it is
wonderfully fake. And the multiple baffle diffraction steps caused by the
stepped front are clearly visible as a frequency response staircase.
Charming and dazzling and while everybody who has listened to it likes it,
including certainly myself, it is a great demonstration of known flaws that
happen to sound well.

Also the stepping - while correct for the temporal offset between midrange
and treble - is woefully inadequate anyway, it had been a better technical
solution to make a flat baffle and fix the temporal issues in the
crossover-optimization, frequency response had also been a lot simpler with
only one baffle diffraction step to compensate.

In as much as diy is about learning by doing it is my most successful
project, the speakers are charming, they look charming and it is taught me
as much as or more than the 7 preceding designs, some of which only made it
to the sketch pad, but did get version numbers.

And now that it has a jbl by audax midrange and is on the way to getting a
Behringer digital x-over with internal eq it may even get a linear frequency
response since its greatest problem was loudspeaker-units with too much
output above x-over points.

> Gary

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[nickbatz]

> A similar monitoring setup to _what_?

To the one you heard in the studio. Or do you mean what you heard in front of the live players. In that case I'd say this design does do that better than traditional ones.

> >Scott, I haven't heard the B&Os, so maybe they totally suck and are just fu=
>
> >rniture. That seems totally farfetched to me, but I can't say.
>
> No, they aren't bad at all. But they aren't a magic solution to all
>
> problems.


Of course not. You still have to make good speakers.


> Acoustic lenses are useful things to have, but they are hard to get right,
>
> and they often solve one problem at the expense of another.


To me the only expense is that they sound very different from what we're used to hearing.

And they really did get them right. The dispersion is practically flat out to 180 degrees.

But sounding very different from what we're used to hearing isn't a trivial issue. I don't know that I'd want to mix on them for that reason. But I'd sure like to have them for listening.


> >But it does mean that the imaging is quite unlike any other speaker you've =
>
> >ever heard. Screw Bose. Screw Walsh. This is a very different sound, and an=
>
> >yone who's heard it knows in five seconds what I mean. The speakers totally=
>
> > disappear. Of course they should disappear in any good system, but this is=
>
> > something else.
>
>
>
> I didn't hear the something else that you heard. Maybe I would again.
>
> Maybe you wouldn't again. Clearly you heard them in a better room than I
>
> did.

I've heard them in three different rooms (I just remembered a trip to The Plant where they had them too).

These weren't the B&Os, though, they were prototypes. Also, they had some smaller prototypes that weren't quite right at that point. The big speakers are the ones that were so amazing.

But I would too would too would too hear the same thing! So would you. I'm telling you, it's unlike anything else we've heard. The difference is pretty radical.

By the way, note that Gary is working on a different design. I agree with him that wide dispersion is the right idea, but of course I haven't heard his speakers.

Really the bigger argument is over room design. I say the acoustic lens speakers prove you don't want to muffle the sides, that the side reflections actually help you localize the speakers themselves so you can hear the image in the recording better. That's what goes against the conventional wisdom, and people get very angry when you tell them that. :) (In all fairness, I have a tendency to get annoyed from the other side. :) )

How can it not all go downhill from the "direct sound" coming from the speakers? You couldn't want reflections from the room, right?

Well, you could if they're the the right ones.

[None]

"Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
...
> The original experience is a huge sound field comprised of the
> direct, early reflected, and reverberant sound in the hall or
> studio. You hear the direct sound first, followed by the early
> reflections from points in the hall which are much wider and deeper
> than the direct, and finished with the reverberant field from all
> around.
>
> What in God's name makes you believe that you can hear any semblance
> of that from two points in front of you?

For many of us, years of very careful listening.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
Luxey > wrote:
>Thank's Frank. I'll check it out. I was really satisfied with it, but at one point I got rid of all the (hardware) outboard and went the software way.

I think there is a software version of the SPL, isn't there? It should be
less apt to have odd colorations in bypass...
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
> I can't say much about LEDE because I haven't heard one. All I can tell you
> is that the more important pattern of reflections are the ones around the
> orchestra, not back in the back of the room.

Gary, many, many of the statements that you make seem to all indicate that you
have not ever heard a properly set-up playback system. You really, really need
to go and hear a good room, and the LEDE system is a method that works very
well with most conventional speakers.

Because this is the way folks monitoring recordings work, and so recordings
are made to be listened in this kind of environment.

And yes, the reflections from the front are important and that's why we use
LEDE systems, to control them effectively.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Scott Dorsey > wrote:
>Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>>
>>Mark Davis went carefully through all of these supposed distortions in
>>speakers and showed that none of them was audible. His conclusion was as I
>>stated, that really all that we can hear about speakers is the frequency
>>response and radiation pattern. I would add a couple of refinements to that
>>observation, namely power and speaker positioning in the room.
>
>No, he did not. Go back and read the paper.
>
>While you're at it, listen to a 40kc tone on a typical home floorstanding
>speaker. Notice how it doesn't sound clean? Now, think about a bassoon.

Whoops, that was a typo. Meant 40 cycles....
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>
>The original experience is a huge sound field comprised of the direct, early
>reflected, and reverberant sound in the hall or studio. You hear the direct
>sound first, followed by the early reflections from points in the hall which
>are much wider and deeper than the direct, and finished with the reverberant
>field from all around.

This is true... but remember, your ears are at only two points, so you are
not able to sense the whole 3-D soundfield, only two little pieces of it.

>What in God's name makes you believe that you can hear any semblance of that
>from two points in front of you? By what theory, system, paradigm, or
>explanation do you imagine that you can get all of those fields back on
>playback from two speakers with just their direct output?

You can't get them all back, you can only get a good illusion. But when
properly done, you can get a strikingly good illusion.

You do not need accurate representation of the wavefront in 3-space. It
would be nice to have such a thing, but its not required. All that is
required is sufficient accuracy of the wavefront to give a good illusion.
If reflections in the original hall are accurately localized enough to
give a clear sense of the space, more accurate reproduction of the wavefront
shape will not buy you any improvement.

Your earlier comment that stereophony has nothing to do with the human hearing
system is very telling... because in fact stereophony has _everything_ to do
with the human hearing system and it relies on the limitations of the human
hearing system in order to provide a convincing and reliable illusion.

What makes me believe that I can hear a good and realistic stereo image
from only two points is strictly this: I have heard it, and it sounded good.
When you have a system that depends on the human perceptuation system, as
stereophony does, that's in the end the proof of the pudding.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

nickbatz > wrote:
>> A similar monitoring setup to _what_?
>
>To the one you heard in the studio. Or do you mean what you heard in front =
>of the live players. In that case I'd say this design does do that better t=
>han traditional ones.

No, I want to hear what it sounds like in front of the live players.

>> Acoustic lenses are useful things to have, but they are hard to get right=
>> and they often solve one problem at the expense of another.=20
>
>To me the only expense is that they sound very different from what we're us=
>ed to hearing.
>
>And they really did get them right. The dispersion is practically flat out =
>to 180 degrees.

One of the major expenses with a wide dispersion system, even if it is
completely flat in all directions, is that they tend to exaggerate room
problems.

>But sounding very different from what we're used to hearing isn't a trivial=
> issue. I don't know that I'd want to mix on them for that reason. But I'd =
>sure like to have them for listening.

Does it sound like what it did in the hall, though? That's what I'm looking
for. I hear all sorts of systems that have a very deep soundstage with very
clear pinpoint imaging, which sounds totally different than what I heard in
the studio. I don't need that either.

>But I would too would too would too hear the same thing! So would you. I'm =
>telling you, it's unlike anything else we've heard. The difference is prett=
>y radical.

Well, I'll give them another listen at the Capitol Audiofest if they bring
them there.

>Really the bigger argument is over room design. I say the acoustic lens spe=
>akers prove you don't want to muffle the sides, that the side reflections a=
>ctually help you localize the speakers themselves so you can hear the image=
> in the recording better. That's what goes against the conventional wisdom,=
> and people get very angry when you tell them that. :) (In all fairness, I =
>have a tendency to get annoyed from the other side. :) )

Remember there are folks making acoustic lenses in order to narrow dispersion
as well.. and there are folks who use full-range drivers who are building
acoustic lenses in order to even out the frequency response with direction
without altering the dispersion. There are a lot of different systems out
there using various arrangements, and there have been since the JBL butt
speakers.

And I agree that the speakers and the room together make a system and you
cannot look at either one individually in isolation.

>How can it not all go downhill from the "direct sound" coming from the spea=
>kers? You couldn't want reflections from the room, right?
>
>Well, you could if they're the the right ones.

Maybe, but maybe the room is so dead that the reflections from the room
don't matter. Or maybe the room has a flutter problem that is only excited
by speakers with the wide pattern. This is when it starts to get fun.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey > wrote:

> Gary Eickmeier > wrote: > I can't say much about
> LEDE because I haven't heard one. All I can tell you > is that the more
> important pattern of reflections are the ones around the > orchestra, not
> back in the back of the room.
>
> Gary, many, many of the statements that you make seem to all indicate that
> you have not ever heard a properly set-up playback system. You really,
> really need to go and hear a good room, and the LEDE system is a method
> that works very well with most conventional speakers.
>
> Because this is the way folks monitoring recordings work, and so
> recordings are made to be listened in this kind of environment.
>
> And yes, the reflections from the front are important and that's why we
> use LEDE systems, to control them effectively. --scott

Further, over such monitors systems good, experienced mixers deliver
audio that plays well not only over systems of that type, but nicely as
possible through the Bose contraption, too.

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

[nickbatz]

I'm talking specifically about the Acoustic Lenses B&O is using, Scott, not generically.

> Maybe, but maybe the room is so dead that the reflections from the room
>
> don't matter. Or maybe the room has a flutter problem that is only excited
>
> by speakers with the wide pattern. This is when it starts to get fun.


I'll have to think about whether there's a geometry that would cause problem fluttering with lateral reflections (in stereo, not surround) because of wide dispersion.

But my argument is exactly that you don't want the room to be so dead that the reflections don't matter! The traditional RFZ concept is based on the idea that you do want it to be that dead, and as I said, it's a sound but to me not the best one.

[Frank Stearns]

nickbatz > writes:

snips

>akers prove you don't want to muffle the sides, that the side reflections a=
>ctually help you localize the speakers themselves so you can hear the image=

Y_I_K_E_S ! ! Maybe in a very large room -- maybe. Or maybe if you're really
immersed in the near field so as to swamp the early reflection noise. Maybe. (And
why do you want to "localize" the speakers -- I want them to "go away" from my
perception and just hear pure sound.)

Short anecdote: recently moved and left my fabulous LEDE room behind. This was a
room that shocked various people -- one a multi-grammy winning engineer, the other a
classical composer -- as to just how good it sounded. Another friend demanded to
know where the center-channel speaker was located -- he didn't see it, couldn't
figure it out, swore he could reach out and touch the faces of vocalists panned
center... The image that was dimensional, real and solid. (There was NO center
speaker, or surround. Stereo only.)

So, into the new room, with NO treatment. Just an Eigentone shell, so the bass
wasn't overly wonky.

The tone was pleasant (these are SGM10Bs with Mastering Lab crossovers and powered
by a Pass Labs Class A amp, so they're going to sound good tonally just about no
matter what).

BUT, the sound in that raw room was a smeared 1 dimension, no depth, obviously
coming from "those speakers". Hit the mono button and not much changed in the image.
This is probably the sound that some of you have been complaining about -- I'm right
with you on that score.

But....

Step 1: Add the rear-wall treatment saved from the old room (the "LE" part of the
LEDE) -- RPGs built for 600-3000 hz diffusion, Hass Kickers with controlled
reflections, bass traps, some full-band absorption. Depth started reappearing in the
play backs, as did some detail.

Step 2: Added just two 2x4 foot temporary panels of 4" 703 on the side walls (one
panel each side) to eliminate the worst early reflections (soffits not built yet).

DRAMATIC improvement! Image clarity -- I can hear a lot more detail, depth better
still, and the mono button yields a strong center image, though not as tight as it
will be. The sensation that the sound has nothing to do with "those speaker boxes"
is better, but still not as completely removed as in the first room. Soffitting and
a final round of bass trapping in the new room will help that.

Point is, introducing early reflections is likely going to cause problems. Now, you
might like the sound of that set of problems because other, bigger problems with the
speakers or room is masked by the smear. Fine. But once you've heard what a really
good monitor chain can do in a well-considered and tuned room, it's really hard to
go back the "fuzzy halo" sound, even though it might be very appealing for some
people with some program material.

But it's not so good for accurate and long-term compelling monitoring, IMO and
experience.

Frank
Mobile Audio



--

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

-snips-

>What makes me believe that I can hear a good and realistic stereo image
>from only two points is strictly this: I have heard it, and it sounded good.
>When you have a system that depends on the human perceptuation system, as
>stereophony does, that's in the end the proof of the pudding.

+1, on a daily basis, project after project...

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Frank Stearns" > wrote in message
acquisition...
> nickbatz > writes:
>
> snips
>
>>akers prove you don't want to muffle the sides, that the side reflections
>>a=
>>ctually help you localize the speakers themselves so you can hear the
>>image=
>
> Y_I_K_E_S ! ! Maybe in a very large room -- maybe. Or maybe if you're
> really
> immersed in the near field so as to swamp the early reflection noise.
> Maybe. (And
> why do you want to "localize" the speakers -- I want them to "go away"
> from my
> perception and just hear pure sound.)

I think Nick mis-spoke on that one, because he has previously established
that the speakers completely disappear.

>
> Short anecdote: recently moved and left my fabulous LEDE room behind. This
> was a
> room that shocked various people -- one a multi-grammy winning engineer,
> the other a
> classical composer -- as to just how good it sounded. Another friend
> demanded to
> know where the center-channel speaker was located -- he didn't see it,
> couldn't
> figure it out, swore he could reach out and touch the faces of vocalists
> panned
> center... The image that was dimensional, real and solid. (There was NO
> center
> speaker, or surround. Stereo only.)
>
> So, into the new room, with NO treatment. Just an Eigentone shell, so the
> bass
> wasn't overly wonky.
>
> The tone was pleasant (these are SGM10Bs with Mastering Lab crossovers and
> powered
> by a Pass Labs Class A amp, so they're going to sound good tonally just
> about no
> matter what).
>
> BUT, the sound in that raw room was a smeared 1 dimension, no depth,
> obviously
> coming from "those speakers". Hit the mono button and not much changed in
> the image.
> This is probably the sound that some of you have been complaining about --
> I'm right
> with you on that score.

If speakers are mis-positioned so that the actual speakers become an obvious
source, then you will start on a path to eliminate reflections. Wrong path.
Need to study the total model of speakers and their virtual images and
eliminate the clustering effect of having them too close to reflecting
surfaces. Need to make all sound sources evenly spaced across the front of
the room to prevent this clustering and pulling of images.

Example: My room is 20 ft wide. My speakers are 5 ft out from the front wall
and 5 ft in from the side walls. This makes all real and virtual image
speakers exactly 10 ft from each other, all the way across the soundstage. I
then decrease the direct sound ratio so that the virtual images pull the
sound to a region between the speakers and the walls. Result is a three
dimensional soundstage with perfect imaging in which the speakers disappear
as sources and individual instrumental images appear as aerial images from
points in space where the speakers aren't, as if by magic. Even images
panned completely left or right do NOT come from the speaker boxes but
rather from points in space behind and slightly to the outside of the
speakers. Ambience contained in the recording comes from wide and deep, on
purpose.

Gary

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

> Example: My room is 20 ft wide. My speakers are 5 ft out from the
> front wall and 5 ft in from the side walls.

Which is to say that you believe in elimininating the early reflections in
the reproduction room.

> Gary

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Frank Stearns]

"Gary Eickmeier" > writes:


>"Frank Stearns" > wrote in message
acquisition...
>> nickbatz > writes:
>>

snips

>> Short anecdote: recently moved and left my fabulous LEDE room behind. This
>> was a
>> room that shocked various people -- one a multi-grammy winning engineer,
>> the other a
>> classical composer -- as to just how good it sounded. Another friend
>> demanded to
>> know where the center-channel speaker was located -- he didn't see it,
>> couldn't
>> figure it out, swore he could reach out and touch the faces of vocalists
>> panned
>> center... The image that was dimensional, real and solid. (There was NO
>> center
>> speaker, or surround. Stereo only.)
>>
>> So, into the new room, with NO treatment. Just an Eigentone shell, so the
>> bass
>> wasn't overly wonky.
>>
>> The tone was pleasant (these are SGM10Bs with Mastering Lab crossovers and
>> powered
>> by a Pass Labs Class A amp, so they're going to sound good tonally just
>> about no
>> matter what).
>>
>> BUT, the sound in that raw room was a smeared 1 dimension, no depth,
>> obviously
>> coming from "those speakers". Hit the mono button and not much changed in
>> the image.
>> This is probably the sound that some of you have been complaining about --
>> I'm right
>> with you on that score.

>If speakers are mis-positioned so that the actual speakers become an obvious
>source, then you will start on a path to eliminate reflections. Wrong path.

No. I start removing early reflections because there is NO CLEAN IMAGE with
their interference! The speakers "disappearing" is just a pleasant side-effect of
the good LEDE room; this is not a primary goal.

>Need to study the total model of speakers and their virtual images and
>eliminate the clustering effect of having them too close to reflecting
>surfaces. Need to make all sound sources evenly spaced across the front of
>the room to prevent this clustering and pulling of images.

But at what frequency? Now you're inviting group delay issues as well. If you like
that sound, fine; but it's not useful for what I do.

>Example: My room is 20 ft wide. My speakers are 5 ft out from the front wall

I don't have that much space.

>and 5 ft in from the side walls. This makes all real and virtual image
>speakers exactly 10 ft from each other, all the way across the soundstage. I

And most likely wonky stuff happening at 226 and 113 Hz, based on 5 and 10 feet
(4.425 mS and 8.85 mS) respectively. Have you ever measured decay time over
frequency? Now, I do know a lot of audiophiles who love a bump (in Hz or resonance)
in that 250 Hz region because it's "warmer" (or muddier, depending on your purpose
and point of view).

>then decrease the direct sound ratio so that the virtual images pull the
>sound to a region between the speakers and the walls. Result is a three

And as mentioned in the past, this is not suitable for professional monitoring. I
want the front-to-back "zero point" of my sound to be on a plane with the drivers.
Then I know if my effects, room capture, et al is pushing something in the mix back
behind the speakers, bringing it in front of the speakers, and anywhere between.
What you describe is an added component of spatial ambiguity I'd prefer not to have.

>dimensional soundstage with perfect imaging in which the speakers disappear
>as sources and individual instrumental images appear as aerial images from
>points in space where the speakers aren't, as if by magic. Even images

Just like a proper LEDE does.

>panned completely left or right do NOT come from the speaker boxes but
>rather from points in space behind and slightly to the outside of the

Just like a proper LEDE does. (I accurately know how much processing to do to move a
sound element well outside the L/R bounds of the speakers -- or whether my live
recording has captured a wealth of such spatial cue information. I don't need the
bootprint of the room to do this.)

>speakers. Ambience contained in the recording comes from wide and deep, on
>purpose.

Just like a proper LEDE does....


Something else so far not mentioned in these threads, to my best recollection:

Suppose for the sake of discussion we accept all these spurious reflections as good
things.

But now there are devils in the details -- what, exactly, is the wall reflecting? If
1/2" rock on studs, it's far from linear -- it's horribly variable, on a long list
of variables, including but not limited to:

- uniformity of sheet rock density (a manufacturing issue)

- uniformity of tension of the rock on the studs (an install issue)

- screws or nails? Glued as well?

- temperature and humidy

- "drum head" effect of the rock on the studs

- resonances based on the cavities formed by the studs

- uneven reflection due to the trapping nature of those cavities.

and so on. *ALL* of these issues are addressed with a proper LEDE room!!!

The absolute minimum you'd want would be two layers of rock, glued and screwed, with
insulation in the cavities. This gives you a fighting chance. If you don't, you're
guaranteed to have something far from flat.

Now, as we know, most raw rooms have wild frequency response -- but the ear adjusts,
and things sort of sound ok for the average listener. But this is NOT a room in
which one can mix.

Flatten that response (in energy, frequency and time), snap up the imaging, and
you've got something amazing that is also a great tool.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
k...
> Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
>> Example: My room is 20 ft wide. My speakers are 5 ft out from the
>> front wall and 5 ft in from the side walls.
>
> Which is to say that you believe in elimininating the early reflections in
> the reproduction room.

I do? Where do they go?

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

Frank -

As I say, I will have to belay all argumentation on this because I have not
heard an LEDE room, of any kind. Wish I could Google them all up and see if
there is one near me. I have written to Full Sail with no response.

I am applying for chapter membership in the Tampa and Orlando areas of the
AES. They are student sections but someone may know where there is a good
room. Bob Katz works out of Full Sail I believe!

Gary


"Frank Stearns" > wrote in message
acquisition...
> "Gary Eickmeier" > writes:
>
>
>>"Frank Stearns" > wrote in message
acquisition...
>>> nickbatz > writes:
>>>
>
> snips
>
>>> Short anecdote: recently moved and left my fabulous LEDE room behind.
>>> This
>>> was a
>>> room that shocked various people -- one a multi-grammy winning engineer,
>>> the other a
>>> classical composer -- as to just how good it sounded. Another friend
>>> demanded to
>>> know where the center-channel speaker was located -- he didn't see it,
>>> couldn't
>>> figure it out, swore he could reach out and touch the faces of vocalists
>>> panned
>>> center... The image that was dimensional, real and solid. (There was NO
>>> center
>>> speaker, or surround. Stereo only.)
>>>
>>> So, into the new room, with NO treatment. Just an Eigentone shell, so
>>> the
>>> bass
>>> wasn't overly wonky.
>>>
>>> The tone was pleasant (these are SGM10Bs with Mastering Lab crossovers
>>> and
>>> powered
>>> by a Pass Labs Class A amp, so they're going to sound good tonally just
>>> about no
>>> matter what).
>>>
>>> BUT, the sound in that raw room was a smeared 1 dimension, no depth,
>>> obviously
>>> coming from "those speakers". Hit the mono button and not much changed
>>> in
>>> the image.
>>> This is probably the sound that some of you have been complaining
>>> about --
>>> I'm right
>>> with you on that score.
>
>>If speakers are mis-positioned so that the actual speakers become an
>>obvious
>>source, then you will start on a path to eliminate reflections. Wrong
>>path.
>
> No. I start removing early reflections because there is NO CLEAN IMAGE
> with
> their interference! The speakers "disappearing" is just a pleasant
> side-effect of
> the good LEDE room; this is not a primary goal.
>
>>Need to study the total model of speakers and their virtual images and
>>eliminate the clustering effect of having them too close to reflecting
>>surfaces. Need to make all sound sources evenly spaced across the front of
>>the room to prevent this clustering and pulling of images.
>
> But at what frequency? Now you're inviting group delay issues as well. If
> you like
> that sound, fine; but it's not useful for what I do.
>
>>Example: My room is 20 ft wide. My speakers are 5 ft out from the front
>>wall
>
> I don't have that much space.
>
>>and 5 ft in from the side walls. This makes all real and virtual image
>>speakers exactly 10 ft from each other, all the way across the soundstage.
>>I
>
> And most likely wonky stuff happening at 226 and 113 Hz, based on 5 and 10
> feet
> (4.425 mS and 8.85 mS) respectively. Have you ever measured decay time
> over
> frequency? Now, I do know a lot of audiophiles who love a bump (in Hz or
> resonance)
> in that 250 Hz region because it's "warmer" (or muddier, depending on your
> purpose
> and point of view).
>
>>then decrease the direct sound ratio so that the virtual images pull the
>>sound to a region between the speakers and the walls. Result is a three
>
> And as mentioned in the past, this is not suitable for professional
> monitoring. I
> want the front-to-back "zero point" of my sound to be on a plane with the
> drivers.
> Then I know if my effects, room capture, et al is pushing something in the
> mix back
> behind the speakers, bringing it in front of the speakers, and anywhere
> between.
> What you describe is an added component of spatial ambiguity I'd prefer
> not to have.
>
>>dimensional soundstage with perfect imaging in which the speakers
>>disappear
>>as sources and individual instrumental images appear as aerial images from
>>points in space where the speakers aren't, as if by magic. Even images
>
> Just like a proper LEDE does.
>
>>panned completely left or right do NOT come from the speaker boxes but
>>rather from points in space behind and slightly to the outside of the
>
> Just like a proper LEDE does. (I accurately know how much processing to do
> to move a
> sound element well outside the L/R bounds of the speakers -- or whether my
> live
> recording has captured a wealth of such spatial cue information. I don't
> need the
> bootprint of the room to do this.)
>
>>speakers. Ambience contained in the recording comes from wide and deep, on
>>purpose.
>
> Just like a proper LEDE does....
>
>
> Something else so far not mentioned in these threads, to my best
> recollection:
>
> Suppose for the sake of discussion we accept all these spurious
> reflections as good
> things.
>
> But now there are devils in the details -- what, exactly, is the wall
> reflecting? If
> 1/2" rock on studs, it's far from linear -- it's horribly variable, on a
> long list
> of variables, including but not limited to:
>
> - uniformity of sheet rock density (a manufacturing issue)
>
> - uniformity of tension of the rock on the studs (an install issue)
>
> - screws or nails? Glued as well?
>
> - temperature and humidy
>
> - "drum head" effect of the rock on the studs
>
> - resonances based on the cavities formed by the studs
>
> - uneven reflection due to the trapping nature of those cavities.
>
> and so on. *ALL* of these issues are addressed with a proper LEDE room!!!
>
> The absolute minimum you'd want would be two layers of rock, glued and
> screwed, with
> insulation in the cavities. This gives you a fighting chance. If you
> don't, you're
> guaranteed to have something far from flat.
>
> Now, as we know, most raw rooms have wild frequency response -- but the
> ear adjusts,
> and things sort of sound ok for the average listener. But this is NOT a
> room in
> which one can mix.
>
> Flatten that response (in energy, frequency and time), snap up the
> imaging, and
> you've got something amazing that is also a great tool.
>
> Frank
> Mobile Audio
> --
> .

[Frank Stearns]

"Gary Eickmeier" > writes:


>"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
k... >> Gary Eickmeier wrote:

>> Well, LEDE it is not as much about where as about when and you have at
>> least those from side and rear wall out of the first few and critical
>> milliseconds.

>There is a paragraph somewhere in Blauert that shows that those timings of
>the reflections are not that important. What is important is the spatial
>part, the angles from which they come. LEDE is the reflection free zone. IMT
>is the reflection full zone.

IMT? (It's late; I'm not clicking on that acronym.)

Side note: an RFZ room is not exactly the same as a LEDE room. RFZ, if I remember
correctly, was a much more live room -- except at the listening position.

RFZ worked better in a larger room. BTW, Gary, your larger room is probably giving
you a little "breathing room" with those reflections.

Any comments on the 250 hz region? The reflective non-linearities of most
standard-built walls?

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Frank Stearns" > wrote in message
acquisition...
> "Gary Eickmeier" > writes:
>
>
>>"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
k... >> Gary Eickmeier
>>wrote:
>
>>> Well, LEDE it is not as much about where as about when and you have at
>>> least those from side and rear wall out of the first few and critical
>>> milliseconds.
>
>>There is a paragraph somewhere in Blauert that shows that those timings of
>>the reflections are not that important. What is important is the spatial
>>part, the angles from which they come. LEDE is the reflection free zone.
>>IMT
>>is the reflection full zone.
>
> IMT? (It's late; I'm not clicking on that acronym.)
>
> Side note: an RFZ room is not exactly the same as a LEDE room. RFZ, if I
> remember
> correctly, was a much more live room -- except at the listening position.
>
> RFZ worked better in a larger room. BTW, Gary, your larger room is
> probably giving
> you a little "breathing room" with those reflections.
>
> Any comments on the 250 hz region? The reflective non-linearities of most
> standard-built walls?

Not worried about it. The frequency response of a direct and reflected
system comes almost totally from the reflected and reverberant sound, which
comes from a multitude of incident angles and does not depend on a single
wall. You can equalize for any such condition, but it is not all that
bothersome. Just imagine a live group coming in and performing for you.
Would you stop them because you have a 250 Hz problem in your wallboard?

The same things would happen with the live group as would happen with my
speakers in IMT, Image Model Theory. One more interesting question to add to
my Sommerwerck discussion in his later thread below, would be what would the
most neutral room be in IMT. My quick answer would be normal reflectivity,
good acoustics for communication throughout the room, no slap echo, no
significant reverb time but as large a room as you can build, 20 or 30 ft
wide at the largest and 30 to 40 ft long. On the small end I think 15 or 16
wide for any serious work as a beginning point.

Gary

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

> "Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
> k...

>> Gary Eickmeier wrote:

>> Well, LEDE it is not as much about where as about when and you have
>> at least those from side and rear wall out of the first few and
>> critical milliseconds.

> There is a paragraph somewhere in Blauert that shows that those
> timings of the reflections are not that important. What is important
> is the spatial part, the angles from which they come. LEDE is the
> reflection free zone. IMT is the reflection full zone.

My experience is that it is vital to eliminate reflections that obfuscate
the information in the first few milliseconds. That is what you do when you
have 5 feet between the speakers and room boundaries.

It is not a total advantage have too much distance between the loudspeakers
and the room boundaries for efficiency reasons, the closer bass loudspeakers
get to corners the better.

With sensibly chosen room dimensions - not all architects are sensible, some
are fascinated by doing it differently, a cube perhaps - you will get 8 dB
reasonably linear boost up to some 120 Hz. The curve shape fits a classic
bass tone control reasonably and is thus easy to compensate. Life also tends
to get easy if the crossover from the lowest bass unit fits the rooms
properties.

> Gary

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Frank Stearns]

"Gary Eickmeier" > writes:


>"Frank Stearns" > wrote in message
acquisition...
>> "Gary Eickmeier" > writes:
>>
>>
>>>"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
k... >> Gary Eickmeier
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>> Well, LEDE it is not as much about where as about when and you have at
>>>> least those from side and rear wall out of the first few and critical
>>>> milliseconds.
>>
>>>There is a paragraph somewhere in Blauert that shows that those timings of
>>>the reflections are not that important. What is important is the spatial
>>>part, the angles from which they come. LEDE is the reflection free zone.
>>>IMT
>>>is the reflection full zone.
>>
>> IMT? (It's late; I'm not clicking on that acronym.)
>>
>> Side note: an RFZ room is not exactly the same as a LEDE room. RFZ, if I
>> remember
>> correctly, was a much more live room -- except at the listening position.
>>
>> RFZ worked better in a larger room. BTW, Gary, your larger room is
>> probably giving
>> you a little "breathing room" with those reflections.
>>
>> Any comments on the 250 hz region? The reflective non-linearities of most
>> standard-built walls?

>Not worried about it. The frequency response of a direct and reflected
>system comes almost totally from the reflected and reverberant sound, which
>comes from a multitude of incident angles and does not depend on a single

So you have not, apparently, done any measurements to confirm this. Yes, yes, I'm
sure it sounds "fine." But I can tell you that as a young engineer, it was a
revelation to start finding various faults here and there via measurement in
seemingly "good" rooms, and then correcting them and listening to those new results.
Things you might not have even known were really wrong, once fixed, yielded so much
better sound, detail, dimension, clarity, etc.

Until you've had that experience, I'm describing color to someone without sight.

Now, it's true one can become myopic with measurement -- that's not what I mean. I
mean validating and cross-checking what you think you hear. And then also being open
to discovery and where that might take you.


>wall. You can equalize for any such condition, but it is not all that

Eeek. I've been all through room EQ as well and would never go back. It's so much
better to get the environment right from the beginning, rather than trying to
paint, wallpaper, or hang designer fabrics on a turd.


>bothersome. Just imagine a live group coming in and performing for you.
>Would you stop them because you have a 250 Hz problem in your wallboard?

Red herring. We're talking about getting a production tool up to an accurate and
stable standard. Hell, if Yo Yo Ma, Josh Bell, Chris Thile, Allison Krauss, or any
one of 100s of brilliant players showed up on my door step I'd listen to them in the
garage or hall closet, for heavens sake. But that's not what we're talking about.


>The same things would happen with the live group as would happen with my
>speakers in IMT, Image Model Theory. One more interesting question to add to

Except that as a production tool, you'd likely have a series of problems that should
be repaired. And as you played that recording again and again, certain things might
start nagging you as being wrong, espescially if you'd already experienced
similar sorts of nagging and had been able to fix such problems in the past. You've
been there before, you know what to do, but at the moment you're stuck with whatever
the problem list might contain.


>my Sommerwerck discussion in his later thread below, would be what would the
>most neutral room be in IMT. My quick answer would be normal reflectivity,
>good acoustics for communication throughout the room, no slap echo, no
>significant reverb time but as large a room as you can build, 20 or 30 ft
>wide at the largest and 30 to 40 ft long. On the small end I think 15 or 16
>wide for any serious work as a beginning point.

I agree that a larger room is generally better, but that's not always realistic or
practical. A major component of good engineering is getting something amazing given
a set of constraints, whatever form they might take.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[hank alrich]

Frank Stearns > wrote:

> A major component of good engineering is getting something amazing given
> a set of constraints, whatever form they might take.

Excellent "big picture" point.

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

[Gary Eickmeier]

Frank -

I can't disagree with all of what you are saying. I am also a videographer
and photographer and I know the value of calibrated monitors and printers to
give you a predictable and correct result. They align movie theaters about
once a day, at least once a week.

I built my listening room by the seat of my pants and some reading on room
ratios and acoustics. I had them use extra thick wallboard and the front end
wall is against the cement block exterior walls. It's fairly solid.

I wonder if the EQ variations in my microphones might swamp any problems
with resonances in my wall surfaces. Anyway, I have measured from the
listening position basically, and it is not bad. I try for a "room curve"
with slightly humped bottom end and sloping downward mid to high end. My
system measures out to about 13 k and then there is some measurable but not
audible response. Most commercial recordings sound great.

Gary

"Frank Stearns" > wrote in message
acquisition...
> "Gary Eickmeier" > writes:
>
>
>>"Frank Stearns" > wrote in message
acquisition...
>>> "Gary Eickmeier" > writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
k... >> Gary Eickmeier
>>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Well, LEDE it is not as much about where as about when and you have at
>>>>> least those from side and rear wall out of the first few and critical
>>>>> milliseconds.
>>>
>>>>There is a paragraph somewhere in Blauert that shows that those timings
>>>>of
>>>>the reflections are not that important. What is important is the spatial
>>>>part, the angles from which they come. LEDE is the reflection free zone.
>>>>IMT
>>>>is the reflection full zone.
>>>
>>> IMT? (It's late; I'm not clicking on that acronym.)
>>>
>>> Side note: an RFZ room is not exactly the same as a LEDE room. RFZ, if I
>>> remember
>>> correctly, was a much more live room -- except at the listening
>>> position.
>>>
>>> RFZ worked better in a larger room. BTW, Gary, your larger room is
>>> probably giving
>>> you a little "breathing room" with those reflections.
>>>
>>> Any comments on the 250 hz region? The reflective non-linearities of
>>> most
>>> standard-built walls?
>
>>Not worried about it. The frequency response of a direct and reflected
>>system comes almost totally from the reflected and reverberant sound,
>>which
>>comes from a multitude of incident angles and does not depend on a single
>
> So you have not, apparently, done any measurements to confirm this. Yes,
> yes, I'm
> sure it sounds "fine." But I can tell you that as a young engineer, it was
> a
> revelation to start finding various faults here and there via measurement
> in
> seemingly "good" rooms, and then correcting them and listening to those
> new results.
> Things you might not have even known were really wrong, once fixed,
> yielded so much
> better sound, detail, dimension, clarity, etc.
>
> Until you've had that experience, I'm describing color to someone without
> sight.
>
> Now, it's true one can become myopic with measurement -- that's not what I
> mean. I
> mean validating and cross-checking what you think you hear. And then also
> being open
> to discovery and where that might take you.
>
>
>>wall. You can equalize for any such condition, but it is not all that
>
> Eeek. I've been all through room EQ as well and would never go back. It's
> so much
> better to get the environment right from the beginning, rather than trying
> to
> paint, wallpaper, or hang designer fabrics on a turd.
>
>
>>bothersome. Just imagine a live group coming in and performing for you.
>>Would you stop them because you have a 250 Hz problem in your wallboard?
>
> Red herring. We're talking about getting a production tool up to an
> accurate and
> stable standard. Hell, if Yo Yo Ma, Josh Bell, Chris Thile, Allison
> Krauss, or any
> one of 100s of brilliant players showed up on my door step I'd listen to
> them in the
> garage or hall closet, for heavens sake. But that's not what we're talking
> about.
>
>
>>The same things would happen with the live group as would happen with my
>>speakers in IMT, Image Model Theory. One more interesting question to add
>>to
>
> Except that as a production tool, you'd likely have a series of problems
> that should
> be repaired. And as you played that recording again and again, certain
> things might
> start nagging you as being wrong, espescially if you'd already experienced
> similar sorts of nagging and had been able to fix such problems in the
> past. You've
> been there before, you know what to do, but at the moment you're stuck
> with whatever
> the problem list might contain.
>
>
>>my Sommerwerck discussion in his later thread below, would be what would
>>the
>>most neutral room be in IMT. My quick answer would be normal reflectivity,
>>good acoustics for communication throughout the room, no slap echo, no
>>significant reverb time but as large a room as you can build, 20 or 30 ft
>>wide at the largest and 30 to 40 ft long. On the small end I think 15 or
>>16
>>wide for any serious work as a beginning point.
>
> I agree that a larger room is generally better, but that's not always
> realistic or
> practical. A major component of good engineering is getting something
> amazing given
> a set of constraints, whatever form they might take.
>
> Frank
> Mobile Audio
>
> --
> .

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
k...


> My experience is that it is vital to eliminate reflections that obfuscate
> the information in the first few milliseconds. That is what you do when
> you have 5 feet between the speakers and room boundaries.
>
> It is not a total advantage have too much distance between the
> loudspeakers and the room boundaries for efficiency reasons, the closer
> bass loudspeakers get to corners the better.
>
> With sensibly chosen room dimensions - not all architects are sensible,
> some are fascinated by doing it differently, a cube perhaps - you will get
> 8 dB reasonably linear boost up to some 120 Hz. The curve shape fits a
> classic bass tone control reasonably and is thus easy to compensate. Life
> also tends to get easy if the crossover from the lowest bass unit fits the
> rooms properties.

I have my subwoofer in the corner and the satellites positioned as
described.

Yes, agreed, speakers positioned too close to the walls will have bad
reflections for reasons not just of timing but more due to the resultant
pattern of speakers and reflections. You can see this pattern if you make an
image model drawing of the speakers and their first reflections as
additional speakers on the other side of the walls. Think of this big
picture as a lattice of 8 direct and reflected sources. If you place the
speakers too close to any wall or walls, you get an unevenly spaced pattern
with some clustering of those images that leads to a pulling of the apparent
sources rather than even imaging across the soundstage.

I'm talking multidirectional speakers here with normally reflective walls.
If you do this speaker positioning wrong, you will come to an incorrect
conclusion that the reflections are all wrong and should be eliminated.
Wrong path. Instead of doing that, try positioning them as I recommend and
neutralize the bad effects and encourage the spatial effects that it will
give you.

A whole new way of thinking about stereo and how to do it.

Gary

[nickbatz]

>>akers prove you don't want to muffle the sides, that the side reflections
>>a=
>>ctually help you localize the speakers themselves so you can hear the
>>image=
>
> Y_I_K_E_S ! !

No yikes at all. It's objective reality.

You don't want the imprint of the room on your mixes - which is why you soak up extra garbage at the front, and probably have some diffusion behind and above you. But if you muffle the sides you will create an *effect*, not an improvement.

Maybe in a very large room -- maybe. Or maybe if you're
> really
> immersed in the near field so as to swamp the early reflection noise.

If you're in a room larger than Haas, okay, but otherwise the size of the room has nothing to do with it. Either does the near field stuff.

The side reflections are a help. Period. Not my opinion, that's how the brain works.


> Maybe.

Definitely. :)

(And
> why do you want to "localize" the speakers -- I want them to "go away"
> from my
> perception and just hear pure sound.)

>I think Nick mis-spoke on that one, because he has previously established
>that the speakers completely disappear.
>- hide quoted text -

Right, I mean the better you hear the speakers, the stronger the illusion of them disappearing. They're like instruments in the room in this context. When people think they want to get rid of the reflections, they're missing that point.

> Short anecdote: recently moved and left my fabulous LEDE room behind. This
> was a
> room that shocked various people -- one a multi-grammy winning engineer,
> the other a
> classical composer -- as to just how good it sounded

Several Nobel-winning gods from Mt. Olympus came into...well, not my room, because it's not ideal, but a room set up like I'm describing. They all agreed that LEDE got some things right and some wrong. :)

And they don't understand why people are so resistant to concepts that disagree with what they think they know!

[William Sommerwerck]

"nickbatz" wrote in message
...

> Right, I mean the better you hear the speakers, the stronger the illusion of
> them
> disappearing. They're like instruments in the room in this context. When
> people
> think they want to get rid of the reflections, they're missing that point.

??????????????????????

[Frank Stearns]

nickbatz > writes:

>>>akers prove you don't want to muffle the sides, that the side reflections
>>>a=
>>>ctually help you localize the speakers themselves so you can hear the
>>>image=
>>
>> Y_I_K_E_S ! !

>No yikes at all. It's objective reality.

Sorry, maybe in your universe, but not in any production environment I've worked in.
Too many times and in too many rooms have I observed what early reflections
can do to obliterate depth and image sharpness (regardless of origin -- up, down,
or SIDES).


>You don't want the imprint of the room on your mixes - which is why you soak up
> extra garbage at the front, and probably have some diffusion behind and above you.
> But if you muffle the sides you will create an *effect*, not an improvement.

Depends on the time window of side wall reflections.

> Maybe in a very large room -- maybe. Or maybe if you're
>> really
>> immersed in the near field so as to swamp the early reflection noise.

>If you're in a room larger than Haas, okay, but otherwise the size of the room has
>nothing to do with it. Either does the near field stuff.

Sorry, this is simply a bizarre statement. The size of the room has to do with the
arrival time of the reflections, and thus where they will land to do comb-filter
damage to the direct sound -- low, mid, or high.

>The side reflections are a help. Period. Not my opinion, that's how the brain works.

I will refrain from snide remarks. But all teasing aside, really -- all you need to
do are a few simple listening tests to hear image quality and depth appear or
disappear as you dampen or include side wall reflections. (This does assume a
properly configured back end of the room. Without that, in some tortured fashion
some side wall info might help, but it's light-years away from ideal.)

Now if you like puffy cloud fuzzy imaging, you'll like the reflections. But if you
like razor sharp localizations left/right and front/back, instruments and voices
that seem real and solid enough to touch, you'll kiss goodby the smearing side
bounces. (Side bounce just past the listening position that enters into the live end
for diffusion and controlled reflection is fine -- just don't include the side
reflections first thing into the listening position.)

> (And
>> why do you want to "localize" the speakers -- I want them to "go away"
>> from my
>> perception and just hear pure sound.)

>>I think Nick mis-spoke on that one, because he has previously established
>>that the speakers completely disappear.
>>- hide quoted text -

>Right, I mean the better you hear the speakers, the stronger the illusion of them
>disappearing. They're like instruments in the room in this context. When people

Well, now, wait a moment. On the face of it that statement seems to be a
non-sequitor. Gary (and I assume you) talk about "images", yet now you want the
speakers to dominate. (And speakers should not be instruments! They are only
conveying devices, hopefully as neutral as we can get them!)

But in one way, I agree. You want the direct sound of the speakers -- without
early-time interference from the room -- to more accurately render the signal fed to
them. Properly integrated rear room diffusion and reflection then support the
overall illusion.


>think they want to get rid of the reflections, they're missing that point. > >>
Short anecdote: recently moved and left my fabulous LEDE room behind. This >> was a
>> room that shocked various people -- one a multi-grammy winning engineer, >> the
other a >> classical composer -- as to just how good it sounded

>Several Nobel-winning gods from Mt. Olympus came into...well, not my room, because
>:it's not ideal, but a room set up like I'm describing. They all agreed that LEDE
>got some things right and some wrong. :)

That's likely, as too many LEDE rooms have not been set up properly. Good chance
that had faults in whatever LEDE room you heard been fixed, everything would have
been good. (And you HAVE heard a good LEDE room first-hand, correct, and not just
had some room labeled as LEDE verbally described to you?)

>And they don't understand why people are so resistant to concepts that disagree
>with what they think they know!

Not a question of "concepts" at all. It's a question of first-hand experimentation
USING YOUR EARS!! (And ears hopefully "calibrated" on a regular basis by attending
completely unamplified live events, such as chamber music groups, recitals, smaller
orchestras and choral presentations, etc, in good halls...)

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Tim Sprout]

On 2/4/2014 7:07 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:
> nickbatz > writes:
>
>>>> akers prove you don't want to muffle the sides, that the side reflections
>>>> a=
>>>> ctually help you localize the speakers themselves so you can hear the
>>>> image=
>>>
>>> Y_I_K_E_S ! !
>
>> No yikes at all. It's objective reality.
>
> Sorry, maybe in your universe, but not in any production environment I've worked in.
> Too many times and in too many rooms have I observed what early reflections
> can do to obliterate depth and image sharpness (regardless of origin -- up, down,
> or SIDES).
>
>
>> You don't want the imprint of the room on your mixes - which is why you soak up
>> extra garbage at the front, and probably have some diffusion behind and above you.
>> But if you muffle the sides you will create an *effect*, not an improvement.
>
> Depends on the time window of side wall reflections.
>
>> Maybe in a very large room -- maybe. Or maybe if you're
>>> really
>>> immersed in the near field so as to swamp the early reflection noise.
>
>> If you're in a room larger than Haas, okay, but otherwise the size of the room has
>> nothing to do with it. Either does the near field stuff.
>
> Sorry, this is simply a bizarre statement. The size of the room has to do with the
> arrival time of the reflections, and thus where they will land to do comb-filter
> damage to the direct sound -- low, mid, or high.
>
>> The side reflections are a help. Period. Not my opinion, that's how the brain works.
>
> I will refrain from snide remarks. But all teasing aside, really -- all you need to
> do are a few simple listening tests to hear image quality and depth appear or
> disappear as you dampen or include side wall reflections. (This does assume a
> properly configured back end of the room. Without that, in some tortured fashion
> some side wall info might help, but it's light-years away from ideal.)
>
> Now if you like puffy cloud fuzzy imaging, you'll like the reflections. But if you
> like razor sharp localizations left/right and front/back, instruments and voices
> that seem real and solid enough to touch, you'll kiss goodby the smearing side
> bounces. (Side bounce just past the listening position that enters into the live end
> for diffusion and controlled reflection is fine -- just don't include the side
> reflections first thing into the listening position.)
>
>> (And
>>> why do you want to "localize" the speakers -- I want them to "go away"
>>> from my
>>> perception and just hear pure sound.)
>
>>> I think Nick mis-spoke on that one, because he has previously established
>>> that the speakers completely disappear.
>>> - hide quoted text -
>
>> Right, I mean the better you hear the speakers, the stronger the illusion of them
>> disappearing. They're like instruments in the room in this context. When people
>
> Well, now, wait a moment. On the face of it that statement seems to be a
> non-sequitor. Gary (and I assume you) talk about "images", yet now you want the
> speakers to dominate. (And speakers should not be instruments! They are only
> conveying devices, hopefully as neutral as we can get them!)
>
> But in one way, I agree. You want the direct sound of the speakers -- without
> early-time interference from the room -- to more accurately render the signal fed to
> them. Properly integrated rear room diffusion and reflection then support the
> overall illusion.
>
>
>> think they want to get rid of the reflections, they're missing that point. > >>
> Short anecdote: recently moved and left my fabulous LEDE room behind. This >> was a
>>> room that shocked various people -- one a multi-grammy winning engineer, >> the
> other a >> classical composer -- as to just how good it sounded
>
>> Several Nobel-winning gods from Mt. Olympus came into...well, not my room, because
>> :it's not ideal, but a room set up like I'm describing. They all agreed that LEDE
>> got some things right and some wrong. :)
>
> That's likely, as too many LEDE rooms have not been set up properly. Good chance
> that had faults in whatever LEDE room you heard been fixed, everything would have
> been good. (And you HAVE heard a good LEDE room first-hand, correct, and not just
> had some room labeled as LEDE verbally described to you?)
>
>> And they don't understand why people are so resistant to concepts that disagree
>> with what they think they know!
>
> Not a question of "concepts" at all. It's a question of first-hand experimentation
> USING YOUR EARS!! (And ears hopefully "calibrated" on a regular basis by attending
> completely unamplified live events, such as chamber music groups, recitals, smaller
> orchestras and choral presentations, etc, in good halls...)
>
> Frank
> Mobile Audio

I like your analysis Frank.

This early reflection thing seems like a horses for courses thing.
Trevor J. Cox and Peter D'Antonio in their book Acoustic Absorbers and
Diffusers: Theory, Design and Application write that taming early
reflections in critical listening rooms is necessary "where spatial and
spectral nuances must be monitored and tailored", versus a "recreational
listening room in which enveloping reflections enhance the listening
experience."

Tim Sprout

[Frank Stearns]

Tim Sprout > writes:

<massive snips, see previous posts on this thread if you need context for this
reply>

>I like your analysis Frank.

Thanks, Tim.

>This early reflection thing seems like a horses for courses thing.
>Trevor J. Cox and Peter D'Antonio in their book Acoustic Absorbers and
>Diffusers: Theory, Design and Application write that taming early
>reflections in critical listening rooms is necessary "where spatial and
>spectral nuances must be monitored and tailored", versus a "recreational
>listening room in which enveloping reflections enhance the listening
>experience."

This is an excellent, succinct quote. It's a point I and others have been trying to
make in this and related threads. Thanks for sharing.

Frank
Mobile Audio


--

[None]

"Tim Sprout" > wrote in message
...
> Trevor J. Cox and Peter D'Antonio in their book Acoustic Absorbers
> and Diffusers: Theory, Design and Application write that taming
> early reflections in critical listening rooms is necessary "where
> spatial and spectral nuances must be monitored and tailored", versus
> a "recreational listening room in which enveloping reflections
> enhance the listening experience."

This is the perfect basis for understanding the whole discussion.

[nickbatz]

Actually it's the perfect basis for continuing to believe the conventional wisdom, which happens to be partially incorrect. It helps if you write off things that contradict your beliefs by saying it's fine for ******s in their living rooms, but not for pros who have actually been to chamber music concerts and listened to actual music.

Right.

One more time: you will not hear comb-fltering between the sound straight from the speakers and their reflections bouncing of side walls. I don't care when they arrive, they won't. Try it!

[Luxey]

On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 20:14:03 UTC+1, Tim Sprout wrote:
> On 2/4/2014 7:07 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:
>
> > nickbatz > writes:
>
> >
>
> >>>> akers prove you don't want to muffle the sides, that the side reflections
>
> >>>> a=
>
> >>>> ctually help you localize the speakers themselves so you can hear the
>
> >>>> image=
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Y_I_K_E_S ! !
>
> >
>
> >> No yikes at all. It's objective reality.
>
> >
>
> > Sorry, maybe in your universe, but not in any production environment I've worked in.
>
> > Too many times and in too many rooms have I observed what early reflections
>
> > can do to obliterate depth and image sharpness (regardless of origin -- up, down,
>
> > or SIDES).
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >> You don't want the imprint of the room on your mixes - which is why you soak up
>
> >> extra garbage at the front, and probably have some diffusion behind and above you.
>
> >> But if you muffle the sides you will create an *effect*, not an improvement.
>
> >
>
> > Depends on the time window of side wall reflections.
>
> >
>
> >> Maybe in a very large room -- maybe. Or maybe if you're
>
> >>> really
>
> >>> immersed in the near field so as to swamp the early reflection noise.
>
> >
>
> >> If you're in a room larger than Haas, okay, but otherwise the size of the room has
>
> >> nothing to do with it. Either does the near field stuff.
>
> >
>
> > Sorry, this is simply a bizarre statement. The size of the room has to do with the
>
> > arrival time of the reflections, and thus where they will land to do comb-filter
>
> > damage to the direct sound -- low, mid, or high.
>
> >
>
> >> The side reflections are a help. Period. Not my opinion, that's how the brain works.
>
> >
>
> > I will refrain from snide remarks. But all teasing aside, really -- all you need to
>
> > do are a few simple listening tests to hear image quality and depth appear or
>
> > disappear as you dampen or include side wall reflections. (This does assume a
>
> > properly configured back end of the room. Without that, in some tortured fashion
>
> > some side wall info might help, but it's light-years away from ideal.)
>
> >
>
> > Now if you like puffy cloud fuzzy imaging, you'll like the reflections. But if you
>
> > like razor sharp localizations left/right and front/back, instruments and voices
>
> > that seem real and solid enough to touch, you'll kiss goodby the smearing side
>
> > bounces. (Side bounce just past the listening position that enters into the live end
>
> > for diffusion and controlled reflection is fine -- just don't include the side
>
> > reflections first thing into the listening position.)
>
> >
>
> >> (And
>
> >>> why do you want to "localize" the speakers -- I want them to "go away"
>
> >>> from my
>
> >>> perception and just hear pure sound.)
>
> >
>
> >>> I think Nick mis-spoke on that one, because he has previously established
>
> >>> that the speakers completely disappear.
>
> >>> - hide quoted text -
>
> >
>
> >> Right, I mean the better you hear the speakers, the stronger the illusion of them
>
> >> disappearing. They're like instruments in the room in this context. When people
>
> >
>
> > Well, now, wait a moment. On the face of it that statement seems to be a
>
> > non-sequitor. Gary (and I assume you) talk about "images", yet now you want the
>
> > speakers to dominate. (And speakers should not be instruments! They are only
>
> > conveying devices, hopefully as neutral as we can get them!)
>
> >
>
> > But in one way, I agree. You want the direct sound of the speakers -- without
>
> > early-time interference from the room -- to more accurately render the signal fed to
>
> > them. Properly integrated rear room diffusion and reflection then support the
>
> > overall illusion.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >> think they want to get rid of the reflections, they're missing that point. > >>
>
> > Short anecdote: recently moved and left my fabulous LEDE room behind. This >> was a
>
> >>> room that shocked various people -- one a multi-grammy winning engineer, >> the
>
> > other a >> classical composer -- as to just how good it sounded
>
> >
>
> >> Several Nobel-winning gods from Mt. Olympus came into...well, not my room, because
>
> >> :it's not ideal, but a room set up like I'm describing. They all agreed that LEDE
>
> >> got some things right and some wrong. :)
>
> >
>
> > That's likely, as too many LEDE rooms have not been set up properly. Good chance
>
> > that had faults in whatever LEDE room you heard been fixed, everything would have
>
> > been good. (And you HAVE heard a good LEDE room first-hand, correct, and not just
>
> > had some room labeled as LEDE verbally described to you?)
>
> >
>
> >> And they don't understand why people are so resistant to concepts that disagree
>
> >> with what they think they know!
>
> >
>
> > Not a question of "concepts" at all. It's a question of first-hand experimentation
>
> > USING YOUR EARS!! (And ears hopefully "calibrated" on a regular basis by attending
>
> > completely unamplified live events, such as chamber music groups, recitals, smaller
>
> > orchestras and choral presentations, etc, in good halls...)
>
> >
>
> > Frank
>
> > Mobile Audio
>
>
>
> I like your analysis Frank.
>
>
>
> This early reflection thing seems like a horses for courses thing.
>
> Trevor J. Cox and Peter D'Antonio in their book Acoustic Absorbers and
>
> Diffusers: Theory, Design and Application write that taming early
>
> reflections in critical listening rooms is necessary "where spatial and
>
> spectral nuances must be monitored and tailored", versus a "recreational
>
> listening room in which enveloping reflections enhance the listening
>
> experience."
>
>
>
> Tim Sprout

This is about the most important thing, some people will never understand.

[William Sommerwerck]

"nickbatz" wrote in message
...

> One more time: you will not hear comb-fltering between the sound
> straight from the speakers and their reflections bouncing of side walls.
> I don't care when they arrive, they won't. Try it!

The question then, is... In what way(s) is comb filtering audible?

Remember my experiment with running the front ambience output of a hall
synthesizer through the main speakers, and a separate pair of speakers a short
distance away? The former arrangement colored the sound and added spurious
ambience and depth. The latter did not -- though whether there were
less-audible combing effects, I don't know.

[Frank Stearns]

nickbatz > writes:

>Actually it's the perfect basis for continuing to believe the conventional =
>wisdom, which happens to be partially incorrect. It helps if you write off =
>things that contradict your beliefs by saying it's fine for ******s in thei=

Oh my. Is that what you do in your living room when you listen to music?

>r living rooms, but not for pros who have actually been to chamber music co=
>ncerts and listened to actual music.

It's a calibration process. If all you *ever* hear comes through electronics and
transducers, your ears are likely skewed. I say this because in past years I've gone
through that very process, with my own perceptions off balance from months on end in
a control room with no extended direct listening to real acoustic instruments and
voices.

Hearing live, unamplified music can get you re-centered and recalibrated. It
"cleanses" your acoustic palette. I was shocked when I first discovered this, and
since then have made it a point to get to those live, UNAMPLIFIED performances. It
really helps!

>Right.

Check.

>One more time: you will not hear comb-fltering between the sound straight f=
>rom the speakers and their reflections bouncing of side walls. I don't care=
> when they arrive, they won't. Try it!

Yes, I certainly wish you would try it.

Here's what I have tried, and what you or anyone else can try. Takes 3-5 seconds
each side, once you've prepared the side walls and determined the correct location
geometry. (You can get a good idea simply by having a friend move a mirror on the
side wall while you're seated at the listening position. See the speaker centered in
the mirror? That's where you want to center the absorption.)

For the experiment, you'll be mounting and dismounting 2'x4'x4" panels of 703.
(Don't skimp here, use something that is a proven absorbing material. If you use
blankets or egg cartons or most foam products you won't get full absorption. You'll
then go, "see! it makes no difference!" and you'll be completely unaware of what is
possible.)

Horizontal mouting is usually best for this simple test. When mounted in the correct
positions and a broad band of reflections to the listening position are mostly
removed, the imaging is sharp and clear. The depth is good. As a verification, going
to mono produces a solid center image (not quite as tight as when the front end is
completely treated, but pretty good).

Dismount the panels and take them out of the room so they're not influencing
anything. In most instances, now there is NO imaging -- it's just smeared glops of
sound that "sort of" hint at stereo. Go to mono, and not much changes. Maybe the
image narrows by 10% of the room width, but that's it.

That's the practical experiment that apparently you have never been able to do. (If
you have, please tell us a bit more about the room, speakers, materials used, and
what you did.)

But now I'm going to zoom out for a moment.

Do you listen to mostly rock or pop music that is largely what I call "manufactured"
music? (Close-mic'd, heavily eq'd and compressed. This is not meant to be a
pejoritive, just an acknowledgement of some of the processes involved.)

If so, I can understand how you and some others might appreciate the image-smeared
sound. Aesthetically, some of that music is so "in your face" and painfully raw that
the "puffing" or "smearing" of poor imaging would likely sand off some of the
painful edges.

With a good monitoring system, you can immediately hear the production details of
this music for what it is (maybe more than you want!), and too often it's like
staring into the high-beam lights of large truck at 20 feet. Smear those piercing
points around a bit and they could become more tolerable.

Perhaps this also illustrates the difference for production use v. home playback.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Scott Dorsey]

nickbatz > wrote:
>
>One more time: you will not hear comb-fltering between the sound straight f=
>rom the speakers and their reflections bouncing of side walls. I don't care=
> when they arrive, they won't. Try it!

In a reflective room, I can.

Also, if there are specular reflections, I can hear the whole stereo image
flip back and forth in some places.

I find these things very annoying.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 4 Feb 2014 22:28:35 -0800 (PST), nickbatz
> wrote:

>Actually it's the perfect basis for continuing to believe the conventional wisdom, which happens to be partially incorrect. It helps if you write off things that contradict your beliefs by saying it's fine for ******s in their living rooms, but not for pros who have actually been to chamber music concerts and listened to actual music.
>
>Right.
>
>One more time: you will not hear comb-fltering between the sound straight from the speakers and their reflections bouncing of side walls. I don't care when they arrive, they won't. Try it!

Really? Then you will hear none on this. A speaker two feet from a
wall. Six feet further along the wall, a microphone is moved back and
forth towards and away from the wall.

http://www.soundthoughts.co.uk/listen/wall_comb_filter.wav

More than slightly audible, I would say.

d

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 5 Feb 2014 09:19:55 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
>
>> A speaker two feet from a wall. Six feet further along the wall, a
>> microphone is moved back and forth towards and away from the wall.
>
>> http://www.soundthoughts.co.uk/listen/wall_comb_filter.wav
>> More than slightly audible, I would say.
>
>This raises a point... All variations in a room's response are due to
>cancellation and reinforcement -- including comb filtering. So the question
>is... How are we using the term? I interpret "comb filtering" as applying only
>to situations in which the direct and interfering sounds are /closely/
>correlated.
>
>I'm not going to defend this point. I'm must raising the issue.

Comb filtering is pretty specific. Sound arrives by two paths of
different length, but at roughly equal amplitudes. The difference in
the path length causes cancellation at frequencies where the
difference is a an odd multiple of half wavelengths, and reinforcement
at even multiples.

Correlation is vital, which is why the effect fades over longer
distances - correlation decreases as time difference increases.

d

[nickbatz]

> It's a calibration process. If all you *ever* hear comes through electronic

Hint: I was being sarcastic, Frank. :)

I'm actually a musician and I go to concerts, in fact recently I've been to more chamber music ones than anything else. But I've seen the LA Phil recently too. (Disney Hall is awesome, by the way, in case anyone who hasn't been to a concert there yet gets a chance.)

And to be honest, the last rock concert I went to was Ringo, maybe ten years ago. That probably doesn't count, because a) I rely on custom-molded earplugs (even when I go to films - my ears are calibrated too low for our noisy world), and b) it's coming through speakers anyway.

But I do listen to - and write - everything.

>See the speaker centered in
>
> the mirror? That's where you want to center the absorption.)

Yes, that's the conventional wisdom and it's exactly what's wrong.

I forget whether I posted this here - this isn't the first time I've had this discussion over the years! - but have you ever played basketball in a gym? That's the worst possible acoustic environment, yet you can localize every sneaker squeak with pinpoint accuracy.

Why? BECAUSE YOUR BRAIN IS NOT A MICROPHONE. The ear is able to separate the directions sounds are coming from. I'm not able to explain the psychoacoustic mechanism, but it's real and it works all day long.

So the test is to listen in a room with the absorption at the front (getting rid of excess reverb), and diffusion overhead and at the rear. (I'm leaving out everything else we all know and assume; bass trapping, etc.) Put up whatever you want on the sides to create your RFZ.

Now take down that junk on the sides to reveal the hard, flat surfaces underneath. Notice how the imaging gets clearer and how you've removed the lowpass filter from your room?

That's what Dave Moulton has come up with, and it really works - because the theory is correct! Ideally you also want everything else: good ratios, symmetry, and so on. But even without the architects, you can turn any reasonable space into a serviceable working room, say for a composer. It's not expensive.

> Do you listen to mostly rock or pop music that is largely what I call "manufactured"
>
> music?

> If so, I can understand how you and some others might appreciate the image-smeared
>
> sound.

Actually I find it the other way around. Acoustic recordings are the ones that sound wrong to me in rooms that are "tuned" with stuff on the side. I sorta like that sound for "manufactured" music, because it gives it more impact.

But I hope we agree that nobody likes image smearing any more than we like distortion. If we don't agree, that's a straw man argument!

Aesthetically, some of that music is so "in your face" and painfully raw that
>
> the "puffing" or "smearing" of poor imaging would likely sand off some of the
>
> painful edges.


Frank Zappa just climbed out of his grave. "How dare that guy have my first name!" he said. "He's his own grandparents!"

> Perhaps this also illustrates the difference for production use v. home playback.

Oy! Oy!

*****
nickbatz > wrote:
>
>One more time: you will not hear comb-fltering between the sound straight f=
>rom the speakers and their reflections bouncing of side walls. I don't care=
> when they arrive, they won't. Try it!

Scott wrote:

>In a reflective room, I can.

It has to be coming from the same angle as the sound from the speakers to comb filter. Excess reverb is bad; my argument is only that the best place to get rid of it is at the front of the room, that getting rid of it from the sides doesn't help.

Don wrote:

"More than slightly audible, I would say"

Why is everyone so resistant?

Try what I wrote above. This is nothing I'm inventing, I promise you - I'm not savvy enough! Nor am I digging in my heels because I like negative attention. This just happens to be true.

And I want to repeat that preference is something else. I like some rooms that have been treated in all directions to create an even freq response at the listening position. That's not my ideal room, but it's a pleasant sound..

This is an interview I did with Dave many years ago - maybe 15? - when I was at Recording magazine:

http://www.moultonlabs.com/dave_more/nick_batzdorf_interview/

[Luxey]

�реда, 05. фебруар 2014. 21.08.25 UTC+1, nickbatz је напи�ао/ла:
> > It's a calibration process. If all you *ever* hear comes through electronic
>
>
>
> Hint: I was being sarcastic, Frank. :)
>
>
>
> I'm actually a musician and I go to concerts, in fact recently I've been to more chamber music ones than anything else. But I've seen the LA Phil recently too. (Disney Hall is awesome, by the way, in case anyone who hasn't been to a concert there yet gets a chance.)
>
>
>
> And to be honest, the last rock concert I went to was Ringo, maybe ten years ago. That probably doesn't count, because a) I rely on custom-molded earplugs (even when I go to films - my ears are calibrated too low for our noisy world), and b) it's coming through speakers anyway.
>
>
>
> But I do listen to - and write - everything.
>
>
>
> >See the speaker centered in
>
> >
>
> > the mirror? That's where you want to center the absorption.)
>
>
>
> Yes, that's the conventional wisdom and it's exactly what's wrong.
>
>
>
> I forget whether I posted this here - this isn't the first time I've had this discussion over the years! - but have you ever played basketball in a gym? That's the worst possible acoustic environment, yet you can localize every sneaker squeak with pinpoint accuracy.
>
>
>
> Why? BECAUSE YOUR BRAIN IS NOT A MICROPHONE. The ear is able to separate the directions sounds are coming from. I'm not able to explain the psychoacoustic mechanism, but it's real and it works all day long.
>
>
>
> So the test is to listen in a room with the absorption at the front (getting rid of excess reverb), and diffusion overhead and at the rear. (I'm leaving out everything else we all know and assume; bass trapping, etc.) Put up whatever you want on the sides to create your RFZ.
>
>
>
> Now take down that junk on the sides to reveal the hard, flat surfaces underneath. Notice how the imaging gets clearer and how you've removed the lowpass filter from your room?
>
>
>
> That's what Dave Moulton has come up with, and it really works - because the theory is correct! Ideally you also want everything else: good ratios, symmetry, and so on. But even without the architects, you can turn any reasonable space into a serviceable working room, say for a composer. It's not expensive.
>
>
>
> > Do you listen to mostly rock or pop music that is largely what I call "manufactured"
>
> >
>
> > music?
>
>
>
> > If so, I can understand how you and some others might appreciate the image-smeared
>
> >
>
> > sound.
>
>
>
> Actually I find it the other way around. Acoustic recordings are the ones that sound wrong to me in rooms that are "tuned" with stuff on the side. I sorta like that sound for "manufactured" music, because it gives it more impact.
>
>
>
> But I hope we agree that nobody likes image smearing any more than we like distortion. If we don't agree, that's a straw man argument!
>
>
>
> Aesthetically, some of that music is so "in your face" and painfully raw that
>
> >
>
> > the "puffing" or "smearing" of poor imaging would likely sand off some of the
>
> >
>
> > painful edges.
>
>
>
>
>
> Frank Zappa just climbed out of his grave. "How dare that guy have my first name!" he said. "He's his own grandparents!"
>
>
>
> > Perhaps this also illustrates the difference for production use v. home playback.
>
>
>
> Oy! Oy!
>
>
>
> *****
>
> nickbatz > wrote:
>
> >
>
> >One more time: you will not hear comb-fltering between the sound straight f=
>
> >rom the speakers and their reflections bouncing of side walls. I don't care=
>
> > when they arrive, they won't. Try it!
>
>
>
> Scott wrote:
>
>
>
> >In a reflective room, I can.
>
>
>
> It has to be coming from the same angle as the sound from the speakers to comb filter. Excess reverb is bad; my argument is only that the best place to get rid of it is at the front of the room, that getting rid of it from the sides doesn't help.
>
>
>
> Don wrote:
>
>
>
> "More than slightly audible, I would say"
>
>
>
> Why is everyone so resistant?
>
>
>
> Try what I wrote above. This is nothing I'm inventing, I promise you - I'm not savvy enough! Nor am I digging in my heels because I like negative attention. This just happens to be true.
>
>
>
> And I want to repeat that preference is something else. I like some rooms that have been treated in all directions to create an even freq response at the listening position. That's not my ideal room, but it's a pleasant sound.
>
>
>
> This is an interview I did with Dave many years ago - maybe 15? - when I was at Recording magazine:
>
>
>
> http://www.moultonlabs.com/dave_more/nick_batzdorf_interview/

Well, Nick, what You say, in essence reads as any room can be turned usable
with propper treatment. Nobody can argue with that. Chnces are in some special
cases, the best way is to have the room untreated. I have no problem with that.

Also, I don't quite understand the difference btw what you're proposing and
LEDE? Taming reflections near the speakers while tuning them to fit arround listening position, that's about it, isn't it?

So in the end, we should understand your case, and maybe even Gary's, that each
room should be turned to a special case, one where that one particular
(un)treatment would work well?
I don't know for you, but I want to be able to hear, with the most precission, what's recorded and what's comming "of tape".
As well as what I'm putting to master. That can give me some confidence about the result being played in any room, treated in any way. I'm affraid, if I'd mix in a room treated Gary's way, and if I relied on what I've heard for critical judgement, it would not translate well in any other room but exactly the same one as one I've mixed in. That's the problem. Tha's what critical listening is (for). To know what's on tape, not what was in some room somewhere, while being able to make it not to sound bad anywhere. That's as far as I'm concerned.

Also I think basketball example has some flaws in logic, but who am I to say/

[nickbatz]

> So in the end, we should understand your case, and maybe even Gary's, that each
>
> room should be turned to a special case, one where that one particular
>
> (un)treatment would work well?


My case is that the ideal monitoring room has enough broadband absorption at the front to get rid of the reverb (i.e. the stuff after Haas); hard, flat sides with no crap up there to get in the way; and probably diffusion at the rear and overhead.

And the conventional reflection-free zone (RTZ) concept is wrong, for the reasons I mentioned.

> I don't know for you, but I want to be able to hear, with the most precission, what's recorded and what's comming "of tape".

Well yah-uh!

> Also I think basketball example has some flaws in logic, but who am I to say

The flaws in logic are these: you could argue that you'd localize the sounds better if the gym were treated with absorbent sides, and that a lot of the reflections are outside 50ms Haas window. But the reality trumps those arguments.

Note that Gary and I aren't the same person. It sounds like he and I are on the same page with what I'm saying, but I'm not 100% sure!

Please read that interview I linked. I've done enough fooling around with this to know that it works (even though my room isn't ideal), but Dave does a much better job of explaining it than I can.

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce > wrote:
>
>Really? Then you will hear none on this. A speaker two feet from a
>wall. Six feet further along the wall, a microphone is moved back and
>forth towards and away from the wall.
>
>http://www.soundthoughts.co.uk/listen/wall_comb_filter.wav
>
>More than slightly audible, I would say.

Now, here's the thing.... if you were to put your head in place of the
microphone and move it back and forth with one ear blocked by a finger,
you would hear this same thing.

BUT... if you were to use two ears to listen, you wouldn't hear it in
anywhere near as dramatic a way, and instead you'd hear changes in the
stereo image, because your brain integrates the signals from the two
ears, each of which are detecting different comb filtering since they are
at different positions.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

None > wrote:

> "Tim Sprout" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Trevor J. Cox and Peter D'Antonio in their book Acoustic Absorbers
> > and Diffusers: Theory, Design and Application write that taming
> > early reflections in critical listening rooms is necessary "where
> > spatial and spectral nuances must be monitored and tailored", versus
> > a "recreational listening room in which enveloping reflections
> > enhance the listening experience."
>
> This is the perfect basis for understanding the whole discussion.
>

Amen.

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

[Luxey]

�реда, 05. фебруар 2014. 22.42.55 UTC+1, nickbatz је напи�ао/ла:
> > I don't know for you, but I want to be able to hear, with the most precission, what's recorded and what's comming "of tape".
>
> Well yah-uh!

Whatever that mean ...

> The flaws in logic are these: you could argue that you'd localize the sounds better if the gym were treated with absorbent sides, and that a lot of the reflections are outside 50ms Haas window. But the reality trumps those arguments.

No, that is not what I thought. I was on the lines of apples vs. oranges. Making point's about one thing to prove another, which is related, but can not be proved by same arguments. Something like that.

> Note that Gary and I aren't the same person. It sounds like he and I are on the same page with what I'm saying, but I'm not 100% sure!

I'm well aware of that. He wants to build magic speakers that would make each bedroom a concert hall, or similiar. You just claim LEDE shuld be LEde. Cool.

> Please read that interview I linked.

I tried, but the very beggining, where he says sound is ... not an instrument, but instrument with reflections ... turned me off. I really think the sound are vibrations, whichever way they were produced. Those vibrations I want captured as good as possible, and reproduced so nothing get in my way of hearing them as captured. Really, I don't care how it sounded "there". I only care how it sounds "here" and how it could sound "elswhere" and "anywhere". That's my school of thought.

[Frank Stearns]

nickbatz > writes:

>> So in the end, we should understand your case, and maybe even Gary's, that each
>> room should be turned to a special case, one where that one particular
>> (un)treatment would work well?

>My case is that the ideal monitoring room has enough broadband absorption at the
>front to get rid of the reverb (i.e. the stuff after Haas); hard, flat sides with
no
> crap up there to get in the way; and probably diffusion at the rear and overhead.

>And the conventional reflection-free zone (RTZ) concept is wrong, for the reasons I
> mentioned.

-snips-

A lot of what Moulton says is fine, and I agree (good interview, btw).

And he's also said (directly or indirectly) a lot of the same things
several of us have already stated in these posts.

A very important one is the quality of the absorption used on the
side walls (or anywhere else) -- that's why I mentioned this
explicity in my previous post. He's right -- you do NOT want your
treatment acting as a low pass filter, unless that's specifically
what you need at some point (and that would likely be rare).

The various acoustic foams from Sonex and Auralex are popular
(and easy to install), but rooms treated with that stuff never
sound right to me. The broader point here is not to make blanket
statements saying that side wall absorption doesn't work when
inferior materials might have been used as the basis for that judgement!

And if 703 or 705 is used (which to me sounds far more "natural" and
even-handed in its absorption), you need enough thickness to get down
to 125 hz (hence the 4" I specified). Then, if you need additional
LF absorption at that spot, put a panel trap behind the 703.

The localization of sounds in a reverberant environment (whistles or
shoe squeaks in a basketball court) in this context is a specious point
to me and misses the larger idea.

Sure, we as humans can localize sounds in a reverberant environment -- we all know
that. The underlying "big" point here is that if we want to "transplant" those
acoustics and sound events to a very different space and still have our ability to
localize within that new space, we've got to be very careful how well we capture and
reproduce the original spatial cues from the original space, and then how much new,
possibly confusing information we're introducing at our new environment. Some new
info helps, some new info degrades.

I went through the anechoic phase (as Moulton said he did) and
quickly rejected it, and then later learned just how useful back-end
diffusions and reflections can be. Moulton acknowledges the
importance of the back wall, something I've mentioned several times
in these posts.

But in the rooms where I've worked, it's simply too easy to
demonstrate the harm done by early reflections from the side walls.
No theory needed, no preconceptions needed one way or the other --
you simply do the most basic experiments. I've described those in detail.
But you seem to ignore those first-hand, repeatable observations.

Granted, different drivers in a different room size might do something
different -- but so far, not in the smaller rooms where I've worked.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Luxey]

Guess I agree with all you said. Just couple of comments


On Thursday, 6 February 2014 16:13:11 UTC+1, Frank Stearns wrote:
> A very important one is the quality of the absorption used on the
> side walls (or anywhere else)...

No need to get into technicalities, which foam, how tick the rockwool, ...
It's quite a common sense to understand that inappropriate medicine can be
ineffective, or make the illness even worse. You're just giving the chance
to someone for attack on those particularities only to hide the point.


> ... we've got to be very careful how well we capture and
> reproduce the original spatial cues ...

Exactly. That's why we need listening environment where we can precisely hear
what's captured. We don't need an environment to hear how it sounded at the
place. We had our capturing devices taken care of that, right there.
If we can precisely hear "captured", we'll know how it sounded there, provided
the care was taken in the process of capturing.

[Frank Stearns]

Luxey > writes:

>Guess I agree with all you said. Just couple of comments

Okay...

>On Thursday, 6 February 2014 16:13:11 UTC+1, Frank Stearns wrote:
>> A very important one is the quality of the absorption used on the
>> side walls (or anywhere else)...

>No need to get into technicalities, which foam, how tick the rockwool, ...
>It's quite a common sense to understand that inappropriate medicine can be
>ineffective, or make the illness even worse. You're just giving the chance
>to someone for attack on those particularities only to hide the point.

I've caught the general drift of that paragraph and agree, but can't quite parse the
whole thing. If you're asking about materials... My preference for absorption is
Owens Corning 703 or 705 (3 or 6 pounds per cubic foot of compressed fiberglass,
respectively; don't ask me why 705 isn't called 706). Those panels are covered with
acoustically transparent cloth. (I'm not a big fan of burlap -- it's ugly, imo --
and be aware of your local fire codes.)

(There's another popular material, the name of which escapes me, that is similar in
performance to 703 or 705, but it is more rigid and isn't made of fiber glass, as
far as I know.)

I selected cloth by going to a huge fabric store. When I found something that was
visually appealing, I held a square foot or so over my ear to hear what passed
through, then waived the sample a foot or two around my head to check for
reflectivity.

It's surprising how much cloth will vary in transparancy and reflectivity, and you
can't always be sure based on what the weave looks like. You want it highly
transparent with zero reflection.

I've never been fond of the foam products, even though they supposedly spec well.
Those specs often measure averaged octave performance, and within that octave you
can hide all sorts of problems, such as narrow-band surface reflections or
pass-throughs (meaning that narrow-band stuff is bouncing right back from the wall
underneath).

If you put your ear near 703, it should almost be disorienting -- there is NOTHING
coming back. Put your year near any supposedly absorptive foam that I've heard and
it's not at all the same experience.


>> ... we've got to be very careful how well we capture and
>> reproduce the original spatial cues ...

>Exactly. That's why we need listening environment where we can precisely hear
>what's captured. We don't need an environment to hear how it sounded at the
>place. We had our capturing devices taken care of that, right there.
>If we can precisely hear "captured", we'll know how it sounded there, provided
>the care was taken in the process of capturing.

All true, but we do need some back wall diffusion and tailored reflection to make it
all work...

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Luxey]

Thank you for all the details. Here we do not have same brands and measurements as you do, but it's (will be) interesting to research for local substitutes.

[nickbatz]

Scott: I missed your argument about putting up a finger in one ear and two mics. While I don't know exactly how this works, I'm confident it's more complicated than just having two sources. (Never mind that you don't generally stuff one ear, so it's sort of moot!)

The image doesn't shift all over the place in a live environment when you move your head; that only happens when you try to use subtle amplitude-based panning in a mix. But the main thing is that we know pretty well where sounds are coming from even with one ear. And we localize sounds all around us with two ears. There's some fancy stuff going on in the brain, and the ear ain't no microphone.

Frank: for sure broadband absorption is better. But the psychoacoustic reality about side reflections being a good thing remains!

This is article Dave wrote about how speakers behave like instruments in the room. It'll probably **** you off even more. :) Some of this is a different subject, but the part everyone is pshawing is in there.

http://www.moultonlabs.com/more/loudspeaker_as_musical_instrument/

[William Sommerwerck]

"nickbatz" wrote in message
...

> This is article Dave wrote about how speakers behave like instruments
> in the room. It'll probably **** you off even more. :) Some of this is a
> different subject, but the part everyone is pshawing is in there.

> http://www.moultonlabs.com/more/loudspeaker_as_musical_instrument

I browsed a bit of this. Moulton's point of view appears to be not only weird,
but useless.

[Frank Stearns]

nickbatz > writes:

snips

>Frank: for sure broadband absorption is better. But the psychoacoustic real=
>ity about side reflections being a good thing remains!

Well, all I can do is remove (in a room that's still under construction) the two
side absorbers and listen as the imaging and depth simply vanishes. I put the
absorbers back and oh my! Imaging and depth returns.

I really don't know how more clearly that case can be stated.


>This is article Dave wrote about how speakers behave like instruments in th=
>e room. It'll probably **** you off even more. :) Some of this is a differe=
>nt subject, but the part everyone is pshawing is in there.

In general, I agree with much of what he's written here -- but it's largely an
exercise in labeling, which is probably useful, but I'm not sure how much practical
knowledge has been advanced.

In a few other instances early in the article he's immediately pushing certain
conclusions without giving equal analysis to things that might not fit his
prejudices. Academics (and would-be academics) love to do this. I've had to edit
writing like that over the years, and it can be teeth-grinding.

But Mr. Moultan is generally a good guy, don't misunderstand. I have used some of
his mixing techniques with great results and in my head thank him each time.


But here's something to consider in these discussions, and how "flavoring" from
small reproduce room acoustics or other system artifacts taint things.

Suppose each of your kitchen utensiles consistently imparted their own flavor on
everything that touched them -- the spoon that added the flavor of cinnamon, the
cayenne pot, the salty fork or paprika spoon.

Now, while under some conditions these might be useful traits (and with today's
playback systems we can probably never completely remove some level of "taste
distortion") I, as the cook, would MUCH RATHER that my utensiles did NOT impart
flavoring. And I'd buy the "lowest-taste/most neutral-taste" flatware and dishes I
could find.

I'd much rather reach for the appropriate spice and set that level myself. (Or, in
the case of acoustic/classical music, faithfully convey the "flavor" of that
performance and venue without adding much more to it. In terms of Moultan's piece, I
favor "reproduction" and not much else.)

But it seems like some folks are embracing forks that flavor and self-taste spoons!
You'd make a good chef absolutely bonkers. (Mabye his kitchen stuff is appropriately
neutral, but then you've gleefully selected and put on the table plates that are
completely whacked out with spurious tastes such that EVERY dish tastes like
cinnamon, or cayenne, or whatever. The "flavor bouquet" of the original food
has been overwhelmed by what you've done. You never know what's actually there.)

I don't know if it's a case of simply "giving up" because the average person isn't
going to treat their living room, or what. But, just like varied systems and mixing
for them, we also have to -- up to a point -- consider small room acoustics when we
mix.

But *as a mixing tool*, I really don't want my monitoring system to be a fuzzy mess!

YMMV.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[nickbatz]

> Well, all I can do is remove (in a room that's still under construction) the two
>
> side absorbers and listen as the imaging and depth simply vanishes. I put the
>
> absorbers back and oh my! Imaging and depth returns.
>
>
>
> I really don't know how more clearly that case can be stated.


Then something else is going on!

I promise you, the side reflections are not what's causing the problems.


> In a few other instances early in the article he's immediately pushing certain
>
> conclusions without giving equal analysis to things that might not fit his
>
> prejudices.


That's exactly the one thing you *can't* accuse Moulton of doing. He threw out a whole lot of what he believed - and I assume was taught - in the face of contradictory evidence! Just being an academic doesn't automatically detach someone from reality, any more than being an audio engineer means you're stoned all the time.

> But *as a mixing tool*, I really don't want my monitoring system to be a fuzzy mess!

Frank. Duh! That's the whole reason for this discussion - how to set up your room so you can hear what's really going on.

[nickbatz]

Let me put it a different way: excess reflections, bad ratios, bounces off back walls and ceilings, and a million other potential room problems that can cause imaging and depth issues don't magically disappear when you remove the side panels.

I too have listened quite a bit with and without side panels, so it's not like I'm making this stuff up either. Unfortunately I value having a front window in my room more than I do having the ideal acoustic set-up - I do a lot of things in here as well as audio and music - so I wasn't able to leave it that way. But it really does work.

Also, some reverse evidence: out of practical necessity I have my big monitors - UREI 809As, which I have to admit to liking even though I'm not supposed to :) - in front of side baffles, and the imaging and depth suffer partly because of that.

[Frank Stearns]

nickbatz > writes:

>> Well, all I can do is remove (in a room that's still under construction) =
>the two=20
>>=20
>> side absorbers and listen as the imaging and depth simply vanishes. I put=
> the=20
>>=20
>> absorbers back and oh my! Imaging and depth returns.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> I really don't know how more clearly that case can be stated.


>Then something else is going on!

>I promise you, the side reflections are not what's causing the problems.

Sorry, Nick, but the experimental evidence in the room here is pretty clear. And I
will say that just two side panels alone go a long way -- probably 85% of the way --
toward a room that is a delight to work in. This new room is not finished; I still
need to soffit-mount the SGM10Bs and front-wall trap out a slight rise around
100-125 hz. The back wall, though, IS finished (it was transplanted form the old
room: RPGs, some absorption, haas kickers + corner panel traps, limp mass in
front of the traps, etc.)

But overall it's good as-is, and quite usable. But I can tell you that it is
UNUSABLE without the side reflection points (as determined by the classic mirror
test) dampened out with 4" of 703. This was also the case in the old room.


>> In a few other instances early in the article he's immediately pushing ce=
>rtain=20
>>=20
>> conclusions without giving equal analysis to things that might not fit hi=
>s=20
>>=20
>> prejudices.


>That's exactly the one thing you *can't* accuse Moulton of doing. He threw =
>out a whole lot of what he believed - and I assume was taught - in the face=
> of contradictory evidence! Just being an academic doesn't automatically de=
>tach someone from reality, any more than being an audio engineer means you'=
>re stoned all the time.

Of course not. What I was getting at (putting on a technical editor's hat for
moment) was the obtuse and stilted language favored by many academics that Moulton
used in the first part of the piece (it got a little better later on).

I'm not saying Moultan is an academic in a pejorative sense; he's done a lot of
good, practical things, more than most typical academics. But the writing style
in this case possibly betrayed something else.

Regardless of the field, there never should be a need for that awkward academic
style, IMO. And when I do read that, I'm on the look-out for BS. Have learned that
the hard way.

When judging technical prose in any field I like to ask, how would Richard Feynman
say that? He was the master of cutting through mile-high piles of well-cured BS as
easily as you or I move through air. (Take, for example, the o-ring issue with the
first shuttle disaster. In a matter of seconds he condensed 50,000 pages of
documents and months of BS engineering finger-pointing flying back and forth with a
sample of o-ring placed in a glass of ice water.)

That wasn't the first time he'd done something like that. And always at the back
end, he had the hard, cold math to back up what he was saying -- no need for
obfuscating puffery of any kind anywhere in the journey.

But I digress.

>> But *as a mixing tool*, I really don't want my monitoring system to be a =
>fuzzy mess!

>Frank. Duh! That's the whole reason for this discussion - how to set up you=
>r room so you can hear what's really going on.

Exactly. And in my room, with my monitors (similar in concept to the 809s, btw),
side reflections hurt.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 15:59:03 -0600, Frank Stearns
> wrote:

>nickbatz > writes:
>
>>> Well, all I can do is remove (in a room that's still under construction) =
>>the two=20
>>>=20
>>> side absorbers and listen as the imaging and depth simply vanishes. I put=
>> the=20
>>>=20
>>> absorbers back and oh my! Imaging and depth returns.
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> I really don't know how more clearly that case can be stated.
>
>
>>Then something else is going on!
>
>>I promise you, the side reflections are not what's causing the problems.
>
>Sorry, Nick, but the experimental evidence in the room here is pretty clear. And I
>will say that just two side panels alone go a long way -- probably 85% of the way --
>toward a room that is a delight to work in. This new room is not finished; I still
>need to soffit-mount the SGM10Bs and front-wall trap out a slight rise around
>100-125 hz. The back wall, though, IS finished (it was transplanted form the old
>room: RPGs, some absorption, haas kickers + corner panel traps, limp mass in
>front of the traps, etc.)
>
>But overall it's good as-is, and quite usable. But I can tell you that it is
>UNUSABLE without the side reflection points (as determined by the classic mirror
>test) dampened out with 4" of 703. This was also the case in the old room.
>
>
>>> In a few other instances early in the article he's immediately pushing ce=
>>rtain=20
>>>=20
>>> conclusions without giving equal analysis to things that might not fit hi=
>>s=20
>>>=20
>>> prejudices.
>
>
>>That's exactly the one thing you *can't* accuse Moulton of doing. He threw =
>>out a whole lot of what he believed - and I assume was taught - in the face=
>> of contradictory evidence! Just being an academic doesn't automatically de=
>>tach someone from reality, any more than being an audio engineer means you'=
>>re stoned all the time.
>
>Of course not. What I was getting at (putting on a technical editor's hat for
>moment) was the obtuse and stilted language favored by many academics that Moulton
>used in the first part of the piece (it got a little better later on).
>
>I'm not saying Moultan is an academic in a pejorative sense; he's done a lot of
>good, practical things, more than most typical academics. But the writing style
>in this case possibly betrayed something else.
>
>Regardless of the field, there never should be a need for that awkward academic
>style, IMO. And when I do read that, I'm on the look-out for BS. Have learned that
>the hard way.
>
>When judging technical prose in any field I like to ask, how would Richard Feynman
>say that? He was the master of cutting through mile-high piles of well-cured BS as
>easily as you or I move through air. (Take, for example, the o-ring issue with the
>first shuttle disaster. In a matter of seconds he condensed 50,000 pages of
>documents and months of BS engineering finger-pointing flying back and forth with a
>sample of o-ring placed in a glass of ice water.)
>
>That wasn't the first time he'd done something like that. And always at the back
>end, he had the hard, cold math to back up what he was saying -- no need for
>obfuscating puffery of any kind anywhere in the journey.
>
>But I digress.
>
>>> But *as a mixing tool*, I really don't want my monitoring system to be a =
>>fuzzy mess!
>
>>Frank. Duh! That's the whole reason for this discussion - how to set up you=
>>r room so you can hear what's really going on.
>
>Exactly. And in my room, with my monitors (similar in concept to the 809s, btw),
>side reflections hurt.
>
>Frank
>Mobile Audio

I have to agree. I treated my room from the bottom up frequency-wise,
until I could sit almost anywhere and hear the same balanced bass and
midrange. But the moment I built a pair of movable side panels and put
them at the reflection points, the image snapped right into focus. It
was a genuine transformation.

d

[Frank Stearns]

nickbatz > writes:

>Let me put it a different way: excess reflections, bad ratios, bounces off =
>back walls and ceilings, and a million other potential room problems that c=
>an cause imaging and depth issues don't magically disappear when you remove=
> the side panels.

100% agreed. That's why I have a proven back wall, and started with an
eigentone-dimensioned shell, along with double rock to reduce a set of problems on
that front.


>I too have listened quite a bit with and without side panels, so it's not l=
>ike I'm making this stuff up either. Unfortunately I value having a front w=
>indow in my room more than I do having the ideal acoustic set-up - I do a l=
>ot of things in here as well as audio and music - so I wasn't able to leave=
> it that way. But it really does work.

Fair enough. My practical limit here was size. I'd would have liked to have had a
larger room so as to have a larger sweet spot, but knew I could still work within
that limit to get a damned accurate room for the work I typically do.


>Also, some reverse evidence: out of practical necessity I have my big monit=
>ors - UREI 809As, which I have to admit to liking even though I'm not suppo=
>sed to :) - in front of side baffles, and the imaging and depth suffer part=
>ly because of that.

Not quite picturing what you've done.

Some folks hate the sound of the 809s/813s. I didn't, at least not for my limited
forays into pop. Otherwise back in those days it was JBL 4320s and 4333s, and even
4310s and 11s!

The one mix I did on the 809s wasn't the most pleasant working environment, but
damn! Unlike the JBLs, with the 809s I knew immediately when I was "right in the
groove" with that mix and had an innate sense of trust in what those monitors were
telling me. BTW, these were soffit mounted in a LEDE room, with surperb LF control.
The room builder had done some arcane stuff for LF control (folded resonators, or
some such). It all worked quite well.

It was then a delight a few years later to be introduced to the SGM10Bs, and a
little after that the Mastering Lab cross-overs for them. This gave the best of both
worlds -- monitors you could trust, and pleasant listening. (Though I will say the
809s probably have a slight edge in forcing you into that "right spot" early on, at
least for pop/rock. Every now and then the SGM10Bs sound so good that you have to
make sure you've done all you should!)

More digression; YMMV

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Frank Stearns]

Jeff Henig > writes:

>Frank Stearns > wrote:
>>
>> Regardless of the field, there never should be a need for that awkward academic
>> style, IMO. And when I do read that, I'm on the look-out for BS. Have learned that
>> the hard way.
>>
>> Frank
>> Mobile Audio

>Exactly. I've a healthy mistrust of heavy jargon when simple language will
>do. I cultivated that while dealing with psychotic PoliSci types in Santa
>Cruz, CA.

>They almost always resorted to lawyerizing with jargon to cover for weak
>ideas.

Big-time bingo, Jeff. Unfortunately, we see more and more of it these days. (I
better not press my own political buttons. <w> I have to get back to work! lol)

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 2/12/2014 7:59 PM, Jeff Henig wrote:
> Frank Stearns > wrote:
>> Jeff Henig > writes:
>>
>>> Frank Stearns > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Regardless of the field, there never should be a need for that awkward academic
>>>> style, IMO. And when I do read that, I'm on the look-out for BS. Have learned that
>>>> the hard way.
>>>>
>>>> Frank
>>>> Mobile Audio
>>
>>> Exactly. I've a healthy mistrust of heavy jargon when simple language will
>>> do. I cultivated that while dealing with psychotic PoliSci types in Santa
>>> Cruz, CA.
>>
>>> They almost always resorted to lawyerizing with jargon to cover for weak
>>> ideas.
>>
>> Big-time bingo, Jeff. Unfortunately, we see more and more of it these days. (I
>> better not press my own political buttons. <w> I have to get back to work! lol)
>>
>> Frank
>> Mobile Audio
>
> How dare you use that ugly four-letter W word in a conversation with me.
> I'm offended.
>
Right. As if that even approaches the level of "Edison NJ Man Sues Jimmy
Kimmel Over Chinese Remarks."
< http://nj1015.com/edison-nj-man-sues-jimmy-kimmel-over-chinese-remarks/ >
~~
[Note: Silly sarcasm alert.]

==
Later...
Ron Capik [aka: NJ Editorial Minstrel (retired) ]
--

[Frank Stearns]

Jeff Henig > writes:

>Frank Stearns > wrote:
>> Jeff Henig > writes:
>>
>>> Frank Stearns > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Regardless of the field, there never should be a need for that awkward academic
>>>> style, IMO. And when I do read that, I'm on the look-out for BS. Have learned that
>>>> the hard way.
>>>>
>>>> Frank
>>>> Mobile Audio
>>
>>> Exactly. I've a healthy mistrust of heavy jargon when simple language will
>>> do. I cultivated that while dealing with psychotic PoliSci types in Santa
>>> Cruz, CA.
>>
>>> They almost always resorted to lawyerizing with jargon to cover for weak
>>> ideas.
>>
>> Big-time bingo, Jeff. Unfortunately, we see more and more of it these days. (I
>> better not press my own political buttons. <w> I have to get back to work! lol)
>>
>> Frank
>> Mobile Audio

>How dare you use that ugly four-letter W word in a conversation with me.
>I'm offended.

But don't you have newly-minted mini-humans running around? They strike me as more
work than some deaf producer making contradictory demands during a 12 hour mix
session!

The little critters must be a labor of love -- before and after. <w>

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[hank alrich]

Ron C > wrote:

> On 2/12/2014 7:59 PM, Jeff Henig wrote:
> > Frank Stearns > wrote:
> >> Jeff Henig > writes:
> >>
> >>> Frank Stearns > wrote: >>>> >>>>
> Regardless of the field, there never should be a need for that awkward
> academic >>>> style, IMO. And when I do read that, I'm on the look-out for
> BS. Have learned that >>>> the hard way. >>>> >>>> Frank >>>> Mobile Audio
> >> >>> Exactly. I've a healthy mistrust of heavy jargon when simple
> language will >>> do. I cultivated that while dealing with psychotic
> PoliSci types in Santa >>> Cruz, CA. >> >>> They almost always resorted to
> lawyerizing with jargon to cover for weak >>> ideas. >> >> Big-time bingo,
> Jeff. Unfortunately, we see more and more of it these days. (I >> better
> not press my own political buttons. <w> I have to get back to work! lol)
> >> >> Frank >> Mobile Audio > > How dare you use that ugly four-letter W
> word in a conversation with me. > I'm offended. > Right. As if that even
> approaches the level of "Edison NJ Man Sues Jimmy Kimmel Over Chinese
> Remarks." <
> http://nj1015.com/edison-nj-man-sues-jimmy-kimmel-over-chinese-remarks/ >
> ~~ [Note: Silly sarcasm alert.]
>
> ==
> Later...
> Ron Capik [aka: NJ Editorial Minstrel (retired) ]
> --

The obvious rememdy for the plaintiff in that case is to turn off his TV
to avoid selfdestruction.

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

[nickbatz]

> >Also, some reverse evidence: out of practical necessity I have my big monit=
>
> >ors - UREI 809As, which I have to admit to liking even though I'm not suppo=
>
> >sed to :) - in front of side baffles, and the imaging and depth suffer part=
>
> >ly because of that.
>
>
>
> Not quite picturing what you've done.


Okay. Before 1950 my room was half the garage (about 10 x 18). At the front of the long dimension of the room I have these really nice, broadband, curved baffles on both sides made by ASC:

http://www.asc-studio-acoustics.com/mix-station.htm

^ Those things without the one in front (because it would block my window). But I sit behind the end of the baffles, outside the muffle zone. The 809As are hanging from the ceilings in the front corners (on CRT mounts) - not the ideal position.

>BTW, these were soffit mounted in a LEDE room, with surperb LF control.

There's a flatscreen monitor filling the space between the speakers, so it's sort of almost kind of functioning the same way as soffit mounting would.

> Some folks hate the sound of the 809s/813s. I didn't, at least not for my limited
>
> forays into pop.


I wouldn't want to rely only on them, but they're a great reference. And they're fun to listen to, despite their flaws!


> The one mix I did on the 809s wasn't the most pleasant working environment, but
>
> damn! Unlike the JBLs, with the 809s I knew immediately when I was "right in the
>
> groove" with that mix and had an innate sense of trust in what those monitors were
>
> telling me.


Yup, I know exactly what you mean. The low end especially just sounds overwhelmingly right.

This is going astray, but I've never heard small speakers that can do that - even if they have a well-integrated sub. The frequencies are all there, but I think it's acoustic compression from a small box that makes them sound....well, a little boxy. That's with all of them, tuned port, sealed, sub - doesn't matter.

But of course they do other things really well, and I still like my Blue Sky set-up a lot.

[Frank Stearns]

nickbatz > writes:

>> >Also, some reverse evidence: out of practical necessity I have my big mo=
>nit=3D
>>=20
>> >ors - UREI 809As, which I have to admit to liking even though I'm not su=
>ppo=3D
>>=20
>> >sed to :) - in front of side baffles, and the imaging and depth suffer p=
>art=3D
>>=20
>> >ly because of that.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Not quite picturing what you've done.


>Okay. Before 1950 my room was half the garage (about 10 x 18). At the front=
> of the long dimension of the room I have these really nice, broadband, cur=
>ved baffles on both sides made by ASC:

>http://www.asc-studio-acoustics.com/mix-station.htm

Ah, yes. Have seen this kit, wondered how well it worked. They are using the right
materials, that's for sure.


>There's a flatscreen monitor filling the space between the speakers, so it'=
>s sort of almost kind of functioning the same way as soffit mounting would.=

Er, not quite, at least in terms of how soffits are used in a LEDE setting. LEDE
Soffits do several different things that I don't think a free-floating surface
(whatever it is -- monitor or piece of wood) can emulate.

Soffits are used to:

- kill all cabinet diffraction; mitigate any weird reflections

- put all cabinet resonances and other stray emissions back in the sealed dead space
behind the soffits. (And the soffit cavity must be absolutely air tight.)

- lock the speaker cabinets in space so that they can't move, even in the slightest,
in reaction to cone excursions. It's amazing how this little feat can improve the
sound. Heavy cabinet construction helps, but even sand-dampened enclosures can't
compete with a properly rigid soffit.

- keep the wavefront all the way up and down the spectrum in a known, controlled
direction. If properly built (and it's a tricky business), the LF from the
soffit-mounted speakers is not omni in the room, as it would be otherwise. Of
course, overall LF performance depends on how you integrate subs, but at least
you've removed another set of wild cards from the LF portion that is handled by the
soffit-mounted units.

And I'm probably forgetting other reasons, but you get the general idea.


>This is going astray, but I've never heard small speakers that can do that =
>- even if they have a well-integrated sub. The frequencies are all there, b=
>ut I think it's acoustic compression from a small box that makes them sound=
>...well, a little boxy. That's with all of them, tuned port, sealed, sub - =
>doesn't matter.

That's the same with the SGM10Bs. Even with lousy cabinets, they did okay.

But, put them in soffits, in LEDE configuration, with stereo subs sharply crossed
just above the port frequency of the SGM10bs, and you'd be amazed at the sound.


>But of course they do other things really well, and I still like my Blue Sk=
>y set-up a lot.

Do you have the 6.5s? Put those in the mobile rig (in little soffits); like them a
great deal. As I noted in another post, those Blue Skys were way ahead of everything
else in the field when I went monitor shopping.

See! We do agree on a few things, anyway. :)

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[nickbatz]

Yeah, the 6.5s (Sky System One). What I like is that they're pleasant to listen to as well as being "accurate." They have a slight dip around the crossover (1.5K), but that's about it.

And understood about the flat monitor in between the speakers being different from airtight soffit mounting. It actually overlaps their fronts a couple of inches, so it does block reflections from the front wall, but of course it's not the same thing as soffit mounting - which what those speakers were designed for.

> See! We do agree on a few things, anyway. :)

I'm sure we agree about most things!

Meanwhile I'm going to start a new thread, because you've raised another issue.

[Gary Eickmeier]

Well hello again - I had no idea this thread was still alive.A lot of banter
but still no agreement. Allow me to straighten youse all out.

Nick, thanks for soldiering on some more on this topic. I am very glad that
I have some support. Didn't know you were a writer for Recording or that you
interviewed Dave Moulton.

Dave is a great man, and a very knowledgeable and prolific recording
engineer. He came up to me before my presentation of my Image Model Theory
paper to support me and give some good tips. He does have one strange idea
about speakers being the first reflection of the real source, which I don't
understand (why he is saying such a thing) and he won't answer me or post my
remarks to those statements on his web site. But still, he is doing things
almost perfectly and I know the kind of sound that you are referring to and
that Dave is getting in his room.

That would be a great place to start. There are a lot of confusion factors
and red herrings in various listening experiences, such as mis-positioning
your speakers and then declaring that the reflected sound is "smearing" your
imaging or some such. You have to get everything right before you can
stumble upon the correct answers.

So after all these years of listening intently for imaging effects of
various speakers and rooms, here is what I hear: If you have the classic
stereo situation of two direct firing speakers with a lot of padding for
absorption around them, as most in this discussion want to do, the imaging
all takes place between the speakers. An extreme left panned or recorded
sound will come from the left speaker and so on, the imaging will be "tight"
and forward and may have some putative depth - as in I can imagine that
that was supposed to sound farther back in the orchestra, but it really
seems to be coming from a point between the speakers. I call this kind of
imaging "Goldfish Bowl" imaging.

Now lets take the absorption off the walls, put some multi-directional
speakers out from all walls in a certain positioning scheme, and then
decrease the direct ratio. What you hear now, what Dave Moulton, Nick, and i
are talking about is the soundstage now spreads from wall to wall rather
than speaker to speaker, it has a real depth of image that comes from behind
the plane of the speakers, and individual instruments come from points in
space where the speakers aren't. It is a thrilling, hard to obtain audio
experience that lets you hear into a recording as never before. The direct
sounds of the instruments come from where they should in the front of your
room, and the early reflected sound that was recorded comes from much wider
and deeper than if it were all made to shove through those two points in
space represented by the speaker boxes themselves. Theres is no comb
filtering for well-known acoustical reasons, that the reflected sound comes
from a much wider spread than the direct, and the direct ratio is too low to
beat equally with the returned sounds.

Dave Moulton in your second essay that you quoted goes through all of the
various roles of the loudspeakers, but I simplify all that down to one: the
speakers in a correctly set up room are not supposed to be simple direct
radiators of the raw channels, but rather function as Image Model
Projectors, using the walls of the room to project this correct combaination
of direct and reflected sounds as aerial images from points in space at the
front of the room, taking on the similar "shape" of the total soundstage
that was recorded.

One last anecdote because I know you won't believe me about this kind of
sound. Siegfried Linkwitz is the one who asked the question of the entire
AES, what are the correct radiation pattern, speaker positioning, and room
acoustical treatment for the best recreation of the Auditory Scene, or
soundstage in a two channel recording. He describes the kind of sound he is
getting in his highly reflective room at home - he describes it in similar
terms to what I have said. Then one fine day a "major acoustical treatment
expert" came over to show him the light and improve his sound. It must haev
been Peter D'Antonio but it doesn't matter. He describes the expert coming
in with an armful of these panels and Siegfried plays some music and gets
his usual great sound. Then the guy puts up one panel after another of
absorption, and Siegfried says that with each additional panel of reflection
killing absorption, the soundstage collapses one more step into the speakers
themselves. until the instruments sound like they are on a clothesline
strung between the speakers.

The sound that was recorded was a huge combination of direct and much wider
reflected sounds, and must be reconstructed as such on playback, not forced
through just the two speakers. The reflected part of this reconstruction
must be done right or you will arrive at the wrong conclusions for the wrong
reasons, and will go around advocating just killing them and declaring Nick,
Dave, some of your friends and relatives wrong.

End of speech for now, very tired & going to bed. Have a band recording
tomorrow.

Gary Eickmeier

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

> ... There are a lot of confusion
> factors and red herrings in various listening experiences, such as
> mis-positioning your speakers and then declaring that the reflected
> sound is "smearing" your imaging or some such. You have to get
> everything right before you can stumble upon the correct answers.

No stumbling required.

> So after all these years of listening intently for imaging effects of
> various speakers and rooms, here is what I hear: If you have the
> classic stereo situation of two direct firing speakers with a lot of
> padding for absorption around them, as most in this discussion want
> to do, the imaging all takes place between the speakers.

Perhaps what you hear, but as a general statement: No, in-phase content is
between the loudspeakers, out of phase content is outside dem, leading to a
rendered image that is wider than the distance between the loudspeakers.

> An extreme
> left panned or recorded sound will come from the left speaker and so
> on, the imaging will be "tight" and forward and may have some
> putative depth - as in I can imagine that that was supposed to sound
> farther back in the orchestra, but it really seems to be coming from
> a point between the speakers. I call this kind of imaging "Goldfish
> Bowl" imaging.

Yes, such recordings exist. Those are the multi-mono recordings. For
stereophonic recordings the image is three dimensional and wider than the
physical basis width of the loudspeaker setup.

> Now lets take the absorption off the walls, put some multi-directional
> speakers out from all walls in a certain positioning scheme, and then
> decrease the direct ratio. What you hear now, what Dave Moulton,
> Nick, and i are talking about is the soundstage now spreads from wall
> to wall rather than speaker to speaker, it has a real depth of image
> that comes from behind the plane of the speakers, and individual
> instruments come from points in space where the speakers aren't.

Yes, any recording played back illustrates the position of the reflective
surfaces. Stereophonic recordings collapse. Interestingly you avoid making
any and seem as ignorant of their properties as the engineers making
multi-mono.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Frank Stearns]

"Peter Larsen" > writes:

-snips-

>Yes, such recordings exist. Those are the multi-mono recordings. For
>stereophonic recordings the image is three dimensional and wider than the
>physical basis width of the loudspeaker setup.

Absolutely true. And going back for months in this discussion, one generally
requires a room that does *not* muck with the captured cues that can produce an
image of sound outside the speakers, and depth that can go back a huge distance.

When you skew those cues by adding room junk too early, you will collapse that
original stereo sound. Oh, you'll get some sort of "spatialization" with those new
early bounces, and close-mic'd pop (or poorly recorded stereo) might be more
listenable -- perhaps even way more listenable -- but it's not accurate.


>> Now lets take the absorption off the walls, put some multi-directional
>> speakers out from all walls in a certain positioning scheme, and then
>> decrease the direct ratio. What you hear now, what Dave Moulton,
>> Nick, and i are talking about is the soundstage now spreads from wall
>> to wall rather than speaker to speaker, it has a real depth of image
>> that comes from behind the plane of the speakers, and individual
>> instruments come from points in space where the speakers aren't.

But Gary, why are you so deaf to what I and others have said over and over and over?

In my LEDE room, it is routine to get sound that goes left/right *outside* the
speakers and front to back by a large distance -- depends on phase manipulations.
Those manipulations can be in the form of original information captured from the
venue in, say, a concert recording; or carefully applied faux revearb, or any number
of time manipulation tools available to the mix engineer when multi-mic'ing, or some
combination.

IIRC, you noted that you heard one LEDE room, apparently poorly done, and have since
then condemned the entire practice. Now, you found/built something you like, built
or applied a theory to match, and to you it sounds nice, but any further curiosity
about LEDE and similar approaches has been abandoned.

Mabye I could mix in your room, but from what you have described -- and based on my
own experience in other rooms and my own -- it seems mixing in your room would be
difficult.

Regardless, *as the mix engineer* I do not -- do NOT - not now, not ever -- want my
room to put its clumsy acoustic boot print on what I'm hearing when I make spatial
judgments. (Maybe it's okay later, for casual listening, but not during mix.) Yes,
diffusion and a little reflection from the back wall is a requirement, definitely,
but I want it many milliseconds *later* than any potential sidewall bounces.

>Yes, any recording played back illustrates the position of the reflective
>surfaces. Stereophonic recordings collapse. Interestingly you avoid making
>any and seem as ignorant of their properties as the engineers making
>multi-mono.

Amen.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[hank alrich]

Frank Stearns > wrote:

> But Gary, why are you so deaf to what I and others have said over and over
> and over?

Because no one hears well while talking.

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

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Frank Stearns" > wrote in message
...

> But Gary, why are you so deaf to what I and others have said over and over
> and over?
>
> In my LEDE room, it is routine to get sound that goes left/right *outside*
> the
> speakers and front to back by a large distance -- depends on phase
> manipulations.
> Those manipulations can be in the form of original information captured
> from the
> venue in, say, a concert recording; or carefully applied faux revearb, or
> any number
> of time manipulation tools available to the mix engineer when
> multi-mic'ing, or some
> combination.
>
> IIRC, you noted that you heard one LEDE room, apparently poorly done, and
> have since
> then condemned the entire practice. Now, you found/built something you
> like, built
> or applied a theory to match, and to you it sounds nice, but any further
> curiosity
> about LEDE and similar approaches has been abandoned.

No, I said I have not heard a good LEDE room. But tell me - everyone,
anyone - in the LEDE design, why the LE part? Why not just the purity of a
DEDE system?

You claim that you can hear sounds wider than the speakers, just as I can. I
know that if and when both ears are allowed to hear both speakers, they will
generally localize to those speakers unless you do some crosstalk
cancellation tricks, which is vewy vewy tricky, but has nothing to do with
the stereophonic system.

Short version: Quite possibly if ever and when ever you hear some of the
effects I have described, you, too are hearing the effects of some reflected
sound within your room.

Gary

[Luxey]

On Wednesday, 19 February 2014 15:01:22 UTC+1, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> "Frank Stearns" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > But Gary, why are you so deaf to what I and others have said over and over
>
> > and over?
>
> >
>
> > In my LEDE room, it is routine to get sound that goes left/right *outside*
>
> > the
>
> > speakers and front to back by a large distance -- depends on phase
>
> > manipulations.
>
> > Those manipulations can be in the form of original information captured
>
> > from the
>
> > venue in, say, a concert recording; or carefully applied faux revearb, or
>
> > any number
>
> > of time manipulation tools available to the mix engineer when
>
> > multi-mic'ing, or some
>
> > combination.
>
> >
>
> > IIRC, you noted that you heard one LEDE room, apparently poorly done, and
>
> > have since
>
> > then condemned the entire practice. Now, you found/built something you
>
> > like, built
>
> > or applied a theory to match, and to you it sounds nice, but any further
>
> > curiosity
>
> > about LEDE and similar approaches has been abandoned.
>
>
>
> No, I said I have not heard a good LEDE room. But tell me - everyone,
>
> anyone - in the LEDE design, why the LE part? Why not just the purity of a
>
> DEDE system?
>
>
>
> You claim that you can hear sounds wider than the speakers, just as I can. I
>
> know that if and when both ears are allowed to hear both speakers, they will
>
> generally localize to those speakers unless you do some crosstalk
>
> cancellation tricks, which is vewy vewy tricky, but has nothing to do with
>
> the stereophonic system.
>
>
>
> Short version: Quite possibly if ever and when ever you hear some of the
>
> effects I have described, you, too are hearing the effects of some reflected
>
> sound within your room.
>
>
>
> Gary

Sometimes it seams you may be not wrong, but then it seams your whole quest
is nothing but renaming old and well known, without actually bringing anything new to the table.

[Frank Stearns]

"Gary Eickmeier" > writes:

>"Frank Stearns" > wrote in message
...

>> But Gary, why are you so deaf to what I and others have said over and over
>> and over?
>>
>> In my LEDE room, it is routine to get sound that goes left/right *outside*
>> the
>> speakers and front to back by a large distance -- depends on phase
>> manipulations.
>> Those manipulations can be in the form of original information captured
>> from the
>> venue in, say, a concert recording; or carefully applied faux revearb, or
>> any number
>> of time manipulation tools available to the mix engineer when
>> multi-mic'ing, or some
>> combination.
>>
>> IIRC, you noted that you heard one LEDE room, apparently poorly done, and
>> have since
>> then condemned the entire practice. Now, you found/built something you
>> like, built
>> or applied a theory to match, and to you it sounds nice, but any further
>> curiosity
>> about LEDE and similar approaches has been abandoned.

>No, I said I have not heard a good LEDE room. But tell me - everyone,
>anyone - in the LEDE design, why the LE part? Why not just the purity of a
>DEDE system?

>You claim that you can hear sounds wider than the speakers, just as I can. I
>know that if and when both ears are allowed to hear both speakers, they will
>generally localize to those speakers unless you do some crosstalk
>cancellation tricks, which is vewy vewy tricky, but has nothing to do with
>the stereophonic system.

>Short version: Quite possibly if ever and when ever you hear some of the
>effects I have described, you, too are hearing the effects of some reflected
>sound within your room.


Gary, honest to gosh, you are beginning to seriously **** me off, to the point
where I might dust off the manual for my news reader and set up a kill file.

Here's what I'm finding most irritating: more than once now you have erroneously
restated (or implied) my position so as to fit your prejudices. For example, you've
made this false dichotomy a few different times: reflective only as you do it, or
completely dead (your reference above to a "DEDE" room). You seem to allow for
nothing else.

A lot of folks -- Moulton himself by his own admission -- have had a brief anechoic
phase, but then quickly rejected it, as did Don Davis, father of the LEDE room, if
I'm remembering my history correctly. (Scott probably has the correct story.) 25
years ago I did my own brief excursion down this barren path.

I have said repeatedly that the trickiest part of the LEDE room might just be the
back wall, where one is carefully combining reflection and diffusion to support the
illusions we all know and love. It's not easy to get it right, but it's sure worth
the bother once you're there. Unfortunately, it seems that the back end of many LEDE
rooms has not been done correctly.

So, one last time I will mention here what I said waaaay back at the beginning of
the threads on this topic: I have no objections to reflections and diffusion. These
are necessary to support the overall illusion that is recorded sound here in the
early 21st Century.

My objection -- based 100% on daily use, experiments, and building rooms -- is that
if reflections are injected too soon, you will damage imaging and depth. This is
pathetically easy to demonstrate.

The side reflections you embrace are likely too much too soon. The fact that you've
stated your sound stage is from *behind* your speakers is a bit unsettling -- not
because it likely sounds bad in terms of spectral balance, but because this type of
time distortion might be doing damage elsewhere. Possibly it isn't, but time skewing
like this from get-go is a red flag to me, again based on direct experience. (And,
such image skew would, in my estimation, make other mixing processes rather
difficult due to the new ambiguities you've added, compared to the rooms I've used.)

If you can understand my positions without changing *my* data to fit *your* curve,
we can continue to thrash this out. If not, then, well, to coin a Net News word:
"plonk".

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[hank alrich]

Frank Stearns > wrote:

> Gary, honest to gosh, you are beginning to seriously **** me off, to the point
> where I might dust off the manual for my news reader and set up a kill file.

Not once has he demonstrated that he can process incoming information.
He's all output, insufferably full of himself. He don't know ****, so
when he steps in it he just goes ahead and puts his foot back in his
mouth. One could teach a pig to sing, literally, before one could teach
Gary to listen.

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

[William Sommerwerck]

"hank alrich" wrote in message ...

> Not once has he demonstrated that he can process incoming information.
> He's all output, insufferably full of himself. He don't know ****, so
> when he steps in it he just goes ahead and puts his foot back in his
> mouth. One could teach a pig to sing, literally, before one could teach
> Gary to listen.

I've spent time with Gary on the phone. He's a very nice person. He just
doesn't understand that science proceeds by asking good questions -- not by
assuming answers. As my e-mail signature makes clear:

"We already know the answers -- we just haven't asked the right questions."
-- Edwin Land

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

> You claim that you can hear sounds wider than the speakers, just as I
> can. I know that if and when both ears are allowed to hear both
> speakers, they will generally localize to those speakers unless you
> do some crosstalk cancellation tricks, which is vewy vewy tricky, but
> has nothing to do with the stereophonic system.

I think you need to read up on the localization of virtual images, there
must be an entire library building somewhere stocked full from floor to
ceiling with literature documenting localization tests. In cyberspace there
is one on the AES website.

> Short version: Quite possibly if ever and when ever you hear some of
> the effects I have described, you, too are hearing the effects of
> some reflected sound within your room.

No. What I referred to was a recording containing a true sterephonic image.
A true stereophonic image is c h a r a c t e r i z e d by phase
differences between the signal components in the left and right channel. A
signal with opposite polarity in the two channels is generally perceived as
coming from both sides, ie. 90 degrees off of the center line. If the world
was perfect you should quite possibly hear signal in opposite polarity as
coming from behind.

> Gary

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 2/19/2014 6:57 PM, Jeff Henig wrote:
> PStamler > wrote:
>> After 263 posts in this thread, it becomes unlikely that any further
>> light will be generated. So I think it's time:
>>
>> HITLER-R-R-R!!
>>
>> Peace,
>> Paul
>
> LOL
>
> What's the matter, is someone Goering your ox?
>
Heil Sound!

==
L...
RC
--