Re: Ethan Winer [Archive] - AudioBanter.com

Gary Eickmeier

February 19th 14, 01:40 PM

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
>
>> There is a lot of trickery that can be employed to give you wide images,
>> deep images, and images with very sharp positioning, but in the end these
>> things are disingenuous because they produce effects that you don't
>> actually
>> hear in the real hall.
>
> Though we are on "the same side" in this, the fact is that miking an
> orchestra close-up does not produce the same acoustic cues one hears in
> the hall. The consensus is that an accurate speaker sounds like the
> recording, not like what one would hear in the hall -- unless that's what
> the recording engineer tried to achieve.

"What is on the recording" compared to "what you would hear in the hall" is
too easy an answer. There are many, many aspects or characteristics of sound
to be accounted for here. Everyone likes to say that my system sounds just
like what I heard in the hall, but we all know that that is not possible.
You can come close in some aspects, but eventually acoustic reality sets in
and you have to face the real problem of how to make one room sound like
another, which is not possible.

One side wants to get rid of the playback room with acoustic absorption, but
we know that you don't want to go too far down that road with just two
speakers. Another group wants to use the room and its surfaces to mimic the
spatial aspect a little better. Possibly a third one we could define wants
to go to a binaural or loudspeaker binaural recording and reproduction, but
that doesn't apply to legacy two channel recordings. Finally, we might
include William's fave rave Ambisonics surround sound, which tries to get
the spatial more correct by using additional speakers and encoding all
directions. This is fine for one listener, but doesn't fulfill my concept of
realism for a larger audience

In all of these systems, ideas, concepts, we see the need to reproduce not
just the spectral aspect, but also the spatial and temporal. My list of
"what we can hear" in the broadest sense is we can hear the power, physical
size, spectral accuracy and noise and distortion in the signal chain, and
spatial characteristics. That is a hell of a lot more than the spectral
accuracy of the electro-acoustical chain.

A lot of "experts" think that the system is a simple matter of the
"accuracy" of the measured spectrum and distortion of what comes out of the
speakers comared to the raw audio signal that went into them. Some extend
that out to "the signal" that went into the microphones, as if the summed
signal that goes into this assumed purist pair of microphones represents all
acoustical properties of everything that you can hear standing there. So
their search for audio Nirvana is a search for greater and greater accuracy.

Well, as Al used to say on Home Improvement when the boss was wrong, "I
don't think so Tim."

Gary Eickmeier

Luxey

February 19th 14, 01:52 PM

If microphones can not sense it, it can not be recorded.
If it's not recorded, it can not be played baack.
If it's not played back, you can not hear it.
How can you improve it, if it's not only inaudiable, but not present, at all.

William Sommerwerck

February 19th 14, 02:08 PM

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...

> "What is on the recording" compared to "what you would
> hear in the hall" is too easy an answer. There are many,
> many aspects or characteristics of sound to be accounted
> for here. Everyone likes to say that [their?] system sounds
> just like what [they?] heard in the hall, but we all know
> that that is not possible.

Oh, but it is. It's called Ambisonics. Your failure to accept this fact is
telling.

It is possible, with technology that has existed for almost 40 years, to
closely approximate the concert-hall performance. I know, because I've made
such recordings. The fact that Ambisonics is not commercially viable is beside
the point.

IT IS NOT THE PURPOSE OF THE LISTENING ROOM TO SIMULATE THE CONCERT HALL.
Period! This is true on both practical and theoretical grounds.

Now, find something constructive to do with your time, instead of chasing
after something you will never achieve.

Luxey

February 19th 14, 02:17 PM

On Wednesday, 19 February 2014 15:08:33 UTC+1, William Sommerwerck wrote:

> IT IS NOT THE PURPOSE OF THE LISTENING ROOM TO SIMULATE THE CONCERT HALL.
>
> Period! This is true on both practical and theoretical grounds.

At the same time, IMO, it'd be totally wrong and counter productive. If anything, better option would be to eliminate everything correlated, i.e.
make the listening room as different from "there" as possible, so you have
better chance to differentiate btw "here" and "there", thus possibly getting
immersed in "there" only, should that be your goal first place.

Scott Dorsey

February 19th 14, 06:38 PM

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
>
>> There is a lot of trickery that can be employed to give you wide images,
>> deep images, and images with very sharp positioning, but in the end these
>> things are disingenuous because they produce effects that you don't actually
>> hear in the real hall.
>
>Though we are on "the same side" in this, the fact is that miking an orchestra
>close-up does not produce the same acoustic cues one hears in the hall. The
>consensus is that an accurate speaker sounds like the recording, not like what
>one would hear in the hall -- unless that's what the recording engineer tried
>to achieve.

Right. And I'm not saying that there might not be someday some way to
effectively fake those acoustic cues.... if you had enough mikes around an
instrument that you could get a good sense of the sound in different directions
you could predict how they'd interact with the room. But right now, there
is no such way. And, in the end, having such a method doesn't buy you
anything other than more things to go wrong.
--scott

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

William Sommerwerck

February 19th 14, 07:46 PM

"Luxey" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 19 February 2014 15:08:33 UTC+1, William Sommerwerck wrote:

>> IT IS NOT THE PURPOSE OF THE LISTENING ROOM TO SIMULATE THE
>> CONCERT HALL. Period! This is true on both practical and theoretical
>> grounds.

> At the same time, IMO, it'd be totally wrong and counter productive.
> If anything, better option would be to eliminate everything correlated, i.e.
> make the listening room as different from "there" as possible, so you have
> better chance to differentiate btw "here" and "there", thus possibly getting
> immersed in "there" only, should that be your goal first place.

I see nothing inconsistent in these points of view.

William Sommerwerck

February 19th 14, 08:01 PM

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

>>> There is a lot of trickery that can be employed to give you wide images,
>>> deep images, and images with very sharp positioning, but in the end these
>>> things are disingenuous because they produce effects that you don't
>>> actually
>>> hear in the real hall.

>> Though we are on "the same side" in this, the fact is that miking an
>> orchestra
>> close-up does not produce the same acoustic cues one hears in the hall. The
>> consensus is that an accurate speaker sounds like the recording, not like
>> what
>> one would hear in the hall -- unless that's what the recording engineer
>> tried
>> to achieve.

> Right. And I'm not saying that there might not be someday some way to
> effectively fake those acoustic cues.... if you had enough mikes around an
> instrument that you could get a good sense of the sound in different
> directions
> you could predict how they'd interact with the room. But right now, there
> is no such way. And, in the end, having such a method doesn't buy you
> anything other than more things to go wrong.

It's unfortunate there are no "definitions" of standardized home listening
rooms. If one is building a custom house, one should be able to tell the
architect "Make it like this", and one gets a good listening room. Similarly,
tract builders could use such living rooms as a selling point.

hank alrich

February 19th 14, 08:08 PM

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
> William Sommerwerck > wrote:
> >"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
>
> >>> There is a lot of trickery that can be employed to give you wide images,
> >>> deep images, and images with very sharp positioning, but in the end these
> >>> things are disingenuous because they produce effects that you don't
> >>> actually
> >>> hear in the real hall.
>
> >> Though we are on "the same side" in this, the fact is that miking an
> >> orchestra
> >> close-up does not produce the same acoustic cues one hears in the hall. The
> >> consensus is that an accurate speaker sounds like the recording, not like
> >> what
> >> one would hear in the hall -- unless that's what the recording engineer
> >> tried
> >> to achieve.
>
> > Right. And I'm not saying that there might not be someday some way to
> > effectively fake those acoustic cues.... if you had enough mikes around an
> > instrument that you could get a good sense of the sound in different
> > directions
> > you could predict how they'd interact with the room. But right now, there
> > is no such way. And, in the end, having such a method doesn't buy you
> > anything other than more things to go wrong.
>
> It's unfortunate there are no "definitions" of standardized home listening
> rooms. If one is building a custom house, one should be able to tell the
> architect "Make it like this", and one gets a good listening room. Similarly,
> tract builders could use such living rooms as a selling point.

Few care enough to bother, and those who do already know an architect
who can manage that. You'd have better marketability by throwing in a
pair of new earbuds with the purchase of the house.

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

Scott Dorsey

February 19th 14, 09:28 PM

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>
>It's unfortunate there are no "definitions" of standardized home listening
>rooms. If one is building a custom house, one should be able to tell the
>architect "Make it like this", and one gets a good listening room. Similarly,
>tract builders could use such living rooms as a selling point.

Call Pelonis or Augsburger.... I think this could be a small but lucrative
market.
--scott

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

Trevor

February 20th 14, 03:44 AM

"Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
...
> "What is on the recording" compared to "what you would hear in the hall"
> is too easy an answer. There are many, many aspects or characteristics of
> sound to be accounted for here. Everyone likes to say that my system
> sounds just like what I heard in the hall, but we all know that that is
> not possible. You can come close in some aspects, but eventually acoustic
> reality sets in and you have to face the real problem of how to make one
> room sound like another, which is not possible.
>
> One side wants to get rid of the playback room with acoustic absorption,
> but we know that you don't want to go too far down that road with just two
> speakers.

No problem, proponents suggest 7.1 systems would solve that. Of course that
means recordings actually made for it rather than stereo.

>Another group wants to use the room and its surfaces to mimic the spatial
>aspect a little better. Possibly a third one we could define wants to go to
>a binaural or loudspeaker binaural recording and reproduction, but that
>doesn't apply to legacy two channel recordings. Finally, we might include
>William's fave rave Ambisonics surround sound, which tries to get the
>spatial more correct by using additional speakers and encoding all
>directions. This is fine for one listener, but doesn't fulfill my concept
>of realism for a larger audience

NO system works for a "larger" audience in a smallish room, so I can't see
that as a negative over current systems.

> In all of these systems, ideas, concepts, we see the need to reproduce not
> just the spectral aspect, but also the spatial and temporal. My list of
> "what we can hear" in the broadest sense is we can hear the power,
> physical size, spectral accuracy and noise and distortion in the signal
> chain, and spatial characteristics. That is a hell of a lot more than the
> spectral accuracy of the electro-acoustical chain.
>
> A lot of "experts" think that the system is a simple matter of the
> "accuracy" of the measured spectrum and distortion of what comes out of
> the speakers comared to the raw audio signal that went into them. Some
> extend that out to "the signal" that went into the microphones, as if the
> summed signal that goes into this assumed purist pair of microphones
> represents all acoustical properties of everything that you can hear
> standing there. So their search for audio Nirvana is a search for greater
> and greater accuracy.

Personally I place imaging well down the list from noise, distortion and
frequency response accuracy. I'd rather good mono than bad stereo any day.
But that's just me. Everyone has their own ideas it seems.

Trevor.

Gary Eickmeier

February 20th 14, 05:19 AM

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...

> Right. And I'm not saying that there might not be someday some way to
> effectively fake those acoustic cues.... if you had enough mikes around an
> instrument that you could get a good sense of the sound in different
> directions
> you could predict how they'd interact with the room. But right now, there
> is no such way. And, in the end, having such a method doesn't buy you
> anything other than more things to go wrong.
> --scott

I don't think it is necessary to get every angle of the whole spherical
output identical; all you need to do is get the general ratios and spatial
patterns more like live. By the time all of the off axis output of all of
the instruments gets integrated into the reverberant field such accuracy as
you describe is not necessary. That is how we hear the timbre of the
instruments in the first place. The total acoustical output of the
instrument is heard in the reverberant field, which also gives the
spaciousness of a good hall and good placement of the instruments, and so
on.

Gary Eickmeier

Gary Eickmeier

February 20th 14, 05:25 AM

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...

> It's unfortunate there are no "definitions" of standardized home listening
> rooms. If one is building a custom house, one should be able to tell the
> architect "Make it like this", and one gets a good listening room.
> Similarly, tract builders could use such living rooms as a selling point.

There is the IEC standard room but I don't think it is big enough. If the
current love of open spaces and "great rooms" holds, there is a chance that
a person could hang some fine sounding speakers from the ceiling just the
right distances from all walls at the front end, put some subs in the
corners out of the way, and then surround sound is easy. A flat screen at
that front end completes the home theater, and none of it takes up any Wife
Acceptance room.

The only problem remaining is being able to play it loud enough to not
disturb neighbors or others in the house.

Gary Eickmeier

Gary Eickmeier

February 20th 14, 05:43 AM

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>>
>>It's unfortunate there are no "definitions" of standardized home listening
>>rooms. If one is building a custom house, one should be able to tell the
>>architect "Make it like this", and one gets a good listening room.
>>Similarly,
>>tract builders could use such living rooms as a selling point.
>
> Call Pelonis or Augsburger.... I think this could be a small but lucrative
> market.
> --scott

You know what guys - I did it with this dedicated listening room/ home
theater home I built 25 years ago, but my better half is going to make me
move and leave it all soon. I designed it all so that it would appeal to a
prospective bride and yet be the best audio room I could conceive. It looks
like a huge family room, fireplace on one end (covered over with a glass and
brass front), it has some nice acoustic treatment that I made from some
half-rounds and pretty grill cloth; it has pictures and miniature musical
instruments decorating the walls (and acting as dispersion, heh...) and
three nice, overstuffed leather sofas for watching and listening. Projector
is overhead, screen is the far front wall painted white. All electronics are
in the adjacent room, which doubles as my editing room for video. The only
thing you see of electronics in the home theater is the remote controls and
infra red relay.

It is a 2800 sq ft pool home in the cul-de-sac of a nice, smallish 80 home
subdivision, four bedrooms one of which is the edit room. Air conditioned
and 3 car garage with opener -

And on and on, but you know what? All of this is not suitable to the little
lady because she didn't have a hand in designing it, and also because she
would not be able to handle it upon my demise.

So I've got to get all of my audio experimentation out of my system and
enjoy it while ai may, because tomorrow is another day. Bye bye ideal
listening room and laboratory for my audio ideas. Hello apartment or
whatever. Bye bye custom IMP speakers, hello Ebay.

Hey, we're all in this together. I have been very fortunate over the years,
but I am over 70 now and got to take care of the family before myself.

HELP

Gary Eickmeier

Peter Larsen[_3_]

February 20th 14, 07:18 AM

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

[planning moving away from house with purposebuilt listening room]

>... also
> because she would not be able to handle it upon my demise.

It is very wise to ensure that ones housing matches ones situation in life,
and no harm is done by scaling to capabilities.

> Hey, we're all in this together. I have been very fortunate over the
> years, but I am over 70 now and got to take care of the family before
> myself.

We all have to be a part of our lives, live your life, do not negate it.

> HELP

You do not have A problem. It has been your own choice to marry and to stay
married, if you didn't want to do either you shouldn't have. But now you are
there, fix your attitude and stop whimpering, love the one you're with and
enjoy having the energy - as it seems from your activity here - of a 50 year
old and never stop learning new things and stay flexible. Small things
dynaudio have good mileage if you can afford the costly ones and small
things KEF have excellent mileage.

> Gary Eickmeier

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

hank alrich

February 20th 14, 05:23 PM

Trevor > wrote:

> I'd rather good mono than bad stereo any day.

Me, too. It's rare today to find anyone among the general population of
music fans who has heard good mono. It can offer an very engaging sound,
with surprising depth.

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

Les Cargill[_4_]

February 20th 14, 06:36 PM

Trevor wrote:
> "Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
> ...

<snip>

> I'd rather good mono than bad stereo any day.

+1

> Trevor.
>
>

--
Les Cargill

Scott Dorsey

February 20th 14, 07:14 PM

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Right. And I'm not saying that there might not be someday some way to
>> effectively fake those acoustic cues.... if you had enough mikes around an
>> instrument that you could get a good sense of the sound in different
>> directions
>> you could predict how they'd interact with the room. But right now, there
>> is no such way. And, in the end, having such a method doesn't buy you
>> anything other than more things to go wrong.
>
>I don't think it is necessary to get every angle of the whole spherical
>output identical; all you need to do is get the general ratios and spatial
>patterns more like live.

No, it needs to be pretty precise, as a little bit of EASE modelling will
demonstrate. A violin, for instance, radiates sound in all directions but
is very beamy at a few specific frequencies and you need to hit those beams
accurately with your measurements. You might not need the most precise of
positioning info but you will need the most precise of spectrum info.

> By the time all of the off axis output of all of
>the instruments gets integrated into the reverberant field such accuracy as
>you describe is not necessary. That is how we hear the timbre of the
>instruments in the first place. The total acoustical output of the
>instrument is heard in the reverberant field, which also gives the
>spaciousness of a good hall and good placement of the instruments, and so
>on.

Right, but the problem is that the radiation pattern of some instruments
is very strange and consequently different rooms affect them dramatically
in different ways as you'll note if you've ever heard a french horn outdoors.

Again, all of this stuff has been studied in detail.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Tobiah

February 20th 14, 09:48 PM

On 02/19/2014 11:18 PM, Peter Larsen wrote:
> Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
> [planning moving away from house with purposebuilt listening room]
>
>> ... also
>> because she would not be able to handle it upon my demise.
>
> It is very wise to ensure that ones housing matches ones situation in life,
> and no harm is done by scaling to capabilities.
>
>> Hey, we're all in this together. I have been very fortunate over the
>> years, but I am over 70 now and got to take care of the family before
>> myself.
>
> We all have to be a part of our lives, live your life, do not negate it.
>
>> HELP
>
> You do not have A problem. It has been your own choice to marry and to stay
> married, if you didn't want to do either you shouldn't have. But now you are
> there, fix your attitude and stop whimpering, love the one you're with and
> enjoy having the energy - as it seems from your activity here - of a 50 year
> old and never stop learning new things and stay flexible. Small things
> dynaudio have good mileage if you can afford the costly ones and small
> things KEF have excellent mileage.

Why is everyone so down on Gary? I'm surprised he still hangs out here.

Frank Stearns

February 20th 14, 10:27 PM

Tobiah > writes:

snips

>Why is everyone so down on Gary? I'm surprised he still hangs out here.

From what I can see, I basically like the guy, his energy and enthusiasm.

What I don't like is being misquoted, or having observations and statements from
myself and others twisted or deleted wholesale so as to fit into a construct that
might not be correct.

Being highly intelligent can be a two-edged sword. You can perhaps see things/do
things that haven't been done before, and within a given field of study you advance
the state of the art. And maybe you do so with opposition, but you clearly prove the
opposition wrong. Like any good science, the opposition ought to then be able to
reconstruct your experiments and get the same results. And they are then
appropriately chagrinned.

But within this thread, there have been some very different results!

Here's the tricky part: if a bubble has been burst, you can turn your superior
intelligence into understanding why and you start again. Or, your can turn your
energy into building walls and moats and other reinforcements to protect something
that simply doesn't work, except in perhaps a narrow case not applicable to a wider
world. Or worse, within your own mind you skew (or ignore) every piece of data to
fit the theory -- in other words, you fool yourself on an ongoing basis.

I'm not picking specifically on Gary; a few times I lived exactly the above in my
younger life. Some bitter pills were swallowed, but I learned a helluva lot from the
experiences.

Frank
Mobile Audio

Trevor

February 21st 14, 12:34 AM

"Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
...
> You know what guys - I did it with this dedicated listening room/ home
> theater home I built 25 years ago, but my better half is going to make me
> move and leave it all soon. I designed it all so that it would appeal to a
> prospective bride and yet be the best audio room I could conceive. It
> looks like a huge family room, fireplace on one end (covered over with a
> glass and brass front), it has some nice acoustic treatment that I made
> from some half-rounds and pretty grill cloth; it has pictures and
> miniature musical instruments decorating the walls (and acting as
> dispersion, heh...) and three nice, overstuffed leather sofas for watching
> and listening. Projector is overhead, screen is the far front wall painted
> white. All electronics are in the adjacent room, which doubles as my
> editing room for video. The only thing you see of electronics in the home
> theater is the remote controls and infra red relay.
>
> It is a 2800 sq ft pool home in the cul-de-sac of a nice, smallish 80 home
> subdivision, four bedrooms one of which is the edit room. Air conditioned
> and 3 car garage with opener -
>
> And on and on, but you know what? All of this is not suitable to the
> little lady because she didn't have a hand in designing it, and also
> because she would not be able to handle it upon my demise.
>
> So I've got to get all of my audio experimentation out of my system and
> enjoy it while ai may, because tomorrow is another day. Bye bye ideal
> listening room and laboratory for my audio ideas. Hello apartment or
> whatever. Bye bye custom IMP speakers, hello Ebay.
>
> Hey, we're all in this together. I have been very fortunate over the
> years, but I am over 70 now and got to take care of the family before
> myself.
>
> HELP

Just tell her time to sell is when you have actually "demised", (or perhaps
require a nursing home) not before!
Somehow I doubt she'll divorce you :-)

Trevor.

Peter Larsen[_3_]

February 21st 14, 04:18 AM

Frank Stearns wrote:

> Tobiah > writes:

> snips

>> Why is everyone so down on Gary? I'm surprised he still hangs out
>> here.

> From what I can see, I basically like the guy, his energy and
> enthusiasm.

+1, bin there, done that, moved on from the stuff he advocates because it is
a loss of clarity (in the temporal/imaging domain).

> Frank
> Mobile Audio

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

Gary Eickmeier

February 21st 14, 06:45 AM

"Frank Stearns" > wrote in message
acquisition...
> Tobiah > writes:
>
> snips
>
>>Why is everyone so down on Gary? I'm surprised he still hangs out here.
>
> From what I can see, I basically like the guy, his energy and enthusiasm.
>
> What I don't like is being misquoted, or having observations and
> statements from
> myself and others twisted or deleted wholesale so as to fit into a
> construct that
> might not be correct.
>
> Being highly intelligent can be a two-edged sword. You can perhaps see
> things/do
> things that haven't been done before, and within a given field of study
> you advance
> the state of the art. And maybe you do so with opposition, but you clearly
> prove the
> opposition wrong. Like any good science, the opposition ought to then be
> able to
> reconstruct your experiments and get the same results. And they are then
> appropriately chagrinned.
>
> But within this thread, there have been some very different results!
>
> Here's the tricky part: if a bubble has been burst, you can turn your
> superior
> intelligence into understanding why and you start again. Or, your can turn
> your
> energy into building walls and moats and other reinforcements to protect
> something
> that simply doesn't work, except in perhaps a narrow case not applicable
> to a wider
> world. Or worse, within your own mind you skew (or ignore) every piece of
> data to
> fit the theory -- in other words, you fool yourself on an ongoing basis.
>
> I'm not picking specifically on Gary; a few times I lived exactly the
> above in my
> younger life. Some bitter pills were swallowed, but I learned a helluva
> lot from the
> experiences.
>
> Frank
> Mobile Audio

Sounds like you think I have lost already Frank. But within the Beolab 5
thread I have a lot of support from unexpected quarters. In any case, there
are a few "camps" in audio that would seem opposed to each other, strongly
advocated by their fans. I would point out the variety of speaker designs
and how different they are from each other, yet they all have strong
advocates.

My mission is to redefine how the system works to show which of those
designs is more correct, under what circumstances, and why. This is an
answer to the Linkwitz Challenge in which he asks the same questions. As
William Summerwerck always says, it is not the answers but the right
questions. No one except me, Siegfried, and perhaps Mark Davis, Amar Bose
and David Moulton have asked the same questions - and arrived at more like
my conclusions than yours.

The experimenting continues. I am building a new speaker design and should
have it in a month or two. Not sure how to tell the world about it yet, but
let's see how successful it is before I open my mouth. The stakes are high.
If I am wrong, I will have to concede to all of my naysayers. If I am right,
it will be the first Image Model Projector and should be the best speaker
yet because it will be "on theory" of everything I have learned about
imaging with its shaped radiation pattern for distance/intensity trading,
its negative directivity index and its image modeling to mimic the live
model.

Gary

Gary Eickmeier

February 21st 14, 06:55 AM

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>> Right. And I'm not saying that there might not be someday some way to
>>> effectively fake those acoustic cues.... if you had enough mikes around
>>> an
>>> instrument that you could get a good sense of the sound in different
>>> directions
>>> you could predict how they'd interact with the room. But right now,
>>> there
>>> is no such way. And, in the end, having such a method doesn't buy you
>>> anything other than more things to go wrong.
>>
>>I don't think it is necessary to get every angle of the whole spherical
>>output identical; all you need to do is get the general ratios and spatial
>>patterns more like live.
>
> No, it needs to be pretty precise, as a little bit of EASE modelling will
> demonstrate. A violin, for instance, radiates sound in all directions but
> is very beamy at a few specific frequencies and you need to hit those
> beams
> accurately with your measurements. You might not need the most precise of
> positioning info but you will need the most precise of spectrum info.
>
>> By the time all of the off axis output of all of
>>the instruments gets integrated into the reverberant field such accuracy
>>as
>>you describe is not necessary. That is how we hear the timbre of the
>>instruments in the first place. The total acoustical output of the
>>instrument is heard in the reverberant field, which also gives the
>>spaciousness of a good hall and good placement of the instruments, and so
>>on.
>
> Right, but the problem is that the radiation pattern of some instruments
> is very strange and consequently different rooms affect them dramatically
> in different ways as you'll note if you've ever heard a french horn
> outdoors.
>
> Again, all of this stuff has been studied in detail.
> --scott

Studied in detail? Then what are they doing with all that study information?
If you know that instruments radiate in all directions into the reverberant
field, giving them their particular sound, and giving the group its
particular sound, then why sould you think you can take that sound, change
it to a direct field from your monitors, and kill the reflected sound from
around them? How do you expect that to sound anything like the live sound?

Just asking the right questions.

Gary

Luxey

February 21st 14, 10:26 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzc5vW9Ze44

Tom McCreadie

February 21st 14, 03:36 PM

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

>> Right, but the problem is that the radiation pattern of some instruments
>> is very strange and consequently different rooms affect them dramatically
>> in different ways as you'll note if you've ever heard a french horn
>> outdoors.
>>
>> Again, all of this stuff has been studied in detail.
>> --scott
>
>Studied in detail? Then what are they doing with all that study information?
>If you know that instruments radiate in all directions into the reverberant
>field, givableing them their particular sound, and giving the group its
>particular sound, then why sould you think you can take that sound, change
>it to a direct field from your monitors, and kill the reflected sound from
>around them? How do you expect that to sound anything like the live sound?
>
>Just asking the right questions.

The data flowing down the cable from your amp to your speakers _already_
contains information on both direct and reverberant sounds of an instrument. Do
you really think that this information will obligingly let itself be
disentangled within your speaker, such that only the 'direct sound component'
gets radiated directly to your ears, while only the 'reverberant sound
component' get sprayed round your room surfaces (the latter to lamely mimic the
auditorium ambience)?

What you are doing is sending 'direct + reverberant' directly to your ears and
at the same time sending ''direct + reverberant' on an indirect room voyage.
Seems to me a bit like taking a piece of buttered bread and gratuitously
slobbering another layer of peanut butter atop.

Commercial classical CD's vary, of course, in the degree and quality of direct
and reverberant sounds - reflecting the auditorium acoustics, recording
techniques etc. So are you prepared to rebuild your listening room - or at least
rearrange the furniture or reposition the speakers - each and every time you
drop a fresh CD in the player?. Surely you would want to fine-tune things to
that particular CD, rather than be satisfied with a one-size-fits-all ambient
wash?

A couple of comments on your earlier posts:
Where did you get the notion that, if one only get direct sound from two
speakers, the sounds will inevitably appear as if they are localized in each
speaker. Nonsense. For years, the Quad folks would gladly demonstrate their
speakers sited behind (visually) opaque curtains.

As for your views on what's needed to create image depth, well, don't forget
that you can get a decent illusion of depth even from a mono recording, played
back through a single speaker, and - for that matter - listened to with a single
ear. Four parameters helping to distinguish a distant instrument from its
closer-sited twin are (a) arrival time delay of direct sounds; (b) lower ratio
of direct:reverb; (c) lower sound level, and (d) loss in the higher frequencies.
Only "b" might be a bit tougher to evaluate in mono.
--
Tom McCreadie

Live at The London Palindrome - ABBA

hank alrich

February 21st 14, 03:55 PM

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:

> Sounds like you think I have lost already Frank. But within the Beolab 5
> thread I have a lot of support from unexpected quarters.

You haven't "lost". This is not a contest. You have "lost it", because
you continually seek reinforcement for ideas that have little support
among developed science. I reiterate that rarely in this forum have I
seen anyone so resistant to learning.

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

S. King

February 21st 14, 04:58 PM

On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 01:45:32 -0500, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

BIG SNIP
>
> The experimenting continues. I am building a new speaker design and
> should have it in a month or two. Not sure how to tell the world about
> it yet, but let's see how successful it is before I open my mouth. The
> stakes are high. If I am wrong, I will have to concede to all of my
> naysayers. If I am right,
> it will be the first Image Model Projector and should be the best
> speaker yet... <SNIP>
> Gary

How will you know if it is the "best speaker yet"? Best implies a
comparison. What specific criteria will you measure? What speakers will
you compare your Image Model Projector to? Your previous arguments seem
to be as much about the listening room as about the speaker. Will you
test your Image Model Projector and other speakers in the same room?
Professionals typically need to make recordings that translate well on
everything from ear buds to automobiles to living rooms. Will your Image
Model Projector help in that endeavour? It would be useful in these
discussions to separate the requirements of a professional tool from the
personal preferences that might apply to an individual's listening system.

Steve

Gary Eickmeier

February 23rd 14, 07:20 AM

"S. King" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 01:45:32 -0500, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
> BIG SNIP
>>
>> The experimenting continues. I am building a new speaker design and
>> should have it in a month or two. Not sure how to tell the world about
>> it yet, but let's see how successful it is before I open my mouth. The
>> stakes are high. If I am wrong, I will have to concede to all of my
>> naysayers. If I am right,
>> it will be the first Image Model Projector and should be the best
>> speaker yet... <SNIP>
>> Gary
>
> How will you know if it is the "best speaker yet"? Best implies a
> comparison. What specific criteria will you measure? What speakers will
> you compare your Image Model Projector to? Your previous arguments seem
> to be as much about the listening room as about the speaker. Will you
> test your Image Model Projector and other speakers in the same room?
> Professionals typically need to make recordings that translate well on
> everything from ear buds to automobiles to living rooms. Will your Image
> Model Projector help in that endeavour? It would be useful in these
> discussions to separate the requirements of a professional tool from the
> personal preferences that might apply to an individual's listening system.
>
> Steve

Good questions Steve. Where have you been anyway?

The main test of the new speakers will be listening to them. But yes, part
of the theory is the room, and they will not sound good in a lousy room, but
there are not that many bad rooms - just the ones that have had Sonex
plastered all over the place. But in most any normal room of a decent size,
say 15 ft wide and above, it should sound better. I am well aware of the
different tastes that are out there, but in a level playing field and done
blind mine should win, just as my cheaper prototypes did in The Challenge.
As for the rooms - if you can imagine a live band playing there, then my
speakers should also sound good there.

Will it do anythiing for mastering? Very possibly. First you could read Dave
Moulton's whole story. Second, I wonder if you have ever noticed that you
can't tell much about your work on headphones, even the finest ones. Things
are a lot clearer on speakers because you get the sound out of your head and
into a plausible acoustic space, with the room helping with localization and
spatial effects. If my speaker gets the spatial effects a lot better,
especially for multiple listeners, then it will indeed be a better mastering
system. If the sound becomes more three dimensional, it will be a better
tool for listening into your recordings.

Time will tell.

Gary Eickmeier

Gary Eickmeier

February 23rd 14, 07:56 AM

"Tom McCreadie" > wrote in message
...

> The data flowing down the cable from your amp to your speakers _already_
> contains information on both direct and reverberant sounds of an
> instrument. Do
> you really think that this information will obligingly let itself be
> disentangled within your speaker, such that only the 'direct sound
> component'
> gets radiated directly to your ears, while only the 'reverberant sound
> component' get sprayed round your room surfaces (the latter to lamely
> mimic the
> auditorium ambience)?

Welcome back Tom.

Have you ever noticed the difference in spatial qualities among speakers?
Direct firing boxes, dipoles, omnis? They all treat the data flowing down
the cables differently somehow. The short answer to your question, how do
they separate out the direct from the later arriving sounds, is just the
precedence effect.
>
> What you are doing is sending 'direct + reverberant' directly to your ears
> and
> at the same time sending ''direct + reverberant' on an indirect room
> voyage.
> Seems to me a bit like taking a piece of buttered bread and gratuitously
> slobbering another layer of peanut butter atop.

So how do you expect it to decode out if all you have is the direct sound to
your ears? Is there some theory or paradigm or model or scheme by which you
are going to recover the spatial patterns that were recorded from just those
two speaker boxes?
>
> Commercial classical CD's vary, of course, in the degree and quality of
> direct
> and reverberant sounds - reflecting the auditorium acoustics, recording
> techniques etc. So are you prepared to rebuild your listening room - or at
> least
> rearrange the furniture or reposition the speakers - each and every time
> you
> drop a fresh CD in the player?. Surely you would want to fine-tune things
> to
> that particular CD, rather than be satisfied with a one-size-fits-all
> ambient
> wash?

The model is a generalized model of the live sound, done in a certain way to
minimize the deleterious effects of the reflected sound and maximize the
spatial effects contained in the recording.
>
> A couple of comments on your earlier posts:
> Where did you get the notion that, if one only get direct sound from two
> speakers, the sounds will inevitably appear as if they are localized in
> each
> speaker. Nonsense. For years, the Quad folks would gladly demonstrate
> their
> speakers sited behind (visually) opaque curtains.

"Localized in each speaker" makes no sense. Not sure what you are referring
to, but that is not what I would have said. I have experienced, and a lot of
writers have said, that the stereo soundstage extends only from speaker to
speaker. A sound panned extreme left will be heard from the left speaker and
that's that. This is what a lot of people think stereo is - just a
lateralization of the instruments from right to left. But if you set up your
system correctly with a lot of multi directional speakers, or especially my
IMPs, then the walls are part of the speakers and the imaging is from wall
to wall, rather than speaker to speaker.
>
> As for your views on what's needed to create image depth, well, don't
> forget
> that you can get a decent illusion of depth even from a mono recording,
> played
> back through a single speaker, and - for that matter - listened to with a
> single
> ear. Four parameters helping to distinguish a distant instrument from its
> closer-sited twin are (a) arrival time delay of direct sounds; (b) lower
> ratio
> of direct:reverb; (c) lower sound level, and (d) loss in the higher
> frequencies.
> Only "b" might be a bit tougher to evaluate in mono.
> --
> Tom McCreadie

A really simple example: Suppose you have a player piano, one of those
Yamahas or similar that can record keystrokes, pressures, everything. It is
in your listening room. Someone sits down and plays. You then will have
perfect reproduction by playing that file back on that piano after he
leaves. Right? But what if we want to do it with speakers? You could, say,
close-mike the piano and then play it back on speakers positioned in the
same spot as the piano, and having similar radiation patterns to the piano.
This should sound identical to the live instrument because the frequencies
and spatial patterns into the room are the same. The piano sound should also
have depth, real depth within your room, because the speakers have been
pulled out from the reflecting surfaces in your room so that the sound
really IS three dimensional.

But if you play the same recording back by padding that room and using
direct only speakers it will not sound the same because you have changed the
spatial nature of the sound fields put into the room. Same data streaming
down the wires, different (and very wrong) sound.

My Image Model Theory is - could be thought of - as a generalized attempt to
mimic the sound fields put into the hall or studio with those put into your
listening room. I call this the spatial "shape" of the live sound. It causes
us to re-think how stereo works, loudspeaker design, and system
installation.

There is a hell of a lot more to it than that, but that is what I am trying
to accomplish, what I am trying to communicate can be done.

Gary Eickmeier

Luxey

February 23rd 14, 02:59 PM

недеља, 23. фебруар 2014. 08.56.39 UTC+1, Gary Eickmeier је написао/ла:

> Have you ever noticed the difference in spatial qualities among speakers?
> Direct firing boxes, dipoles, omnis? They all treat the data flowing down
> the cables differently somehow. The short answer to your question, how do
> they separate out the direct from the later arriving sounds, is just the
> precedence effect.

> So how do you expect it to decode out if all you have is the direct sound to
> your ears? Is there some theory or paradigm or model or scheme by which you
> are going to recover the spatial patterns that were recorded from just those
> two speaker boxes?

Gary,

you're obnoxious and inbcapable to comprehend even the most basic concepts.
I really think you should stop poluting cyber space as it belongs to everybody, not only you, so please be nice to your environment.

hank alrich

February 23rd 14, 04:03 PM

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:

> "S. King" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 01:45:32 -0500, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> >
> > BIG SNIP
> >>
> >> The experimenting continues. I am building a new speaker design and
> >> should have it in a month or two. Not sure how to tell the world about
> >> it yet, but let's see how successful it is before I open my mouth. The
> >> stakes are high. If I am wrong, I will have to concede to all of my
> >> naysayers. If I am right,
> >> it will be the first Image Model Projector and should be the best
> >> speaker yet... <SNIP>
> >> Gary
> >
> > How will you know if it is the "best speaker yet"? Best implies a
> > comparison. What specific criteria will you measure? What speakers will
> > you compare your Image Model Projector to? Your previous arguments seem
> > to be as much about the listening room as about the speaker. Will you
> > test your Image Model Projector and other speakers in the same room?
> > Professionals typically need to make recordings that translate well on
> > everything from ear buds to automobiles to living rooms. Will your Image
> > Model Projector help in that endeavour? It would be useful in these
> > discussions to separate the requirements of a professional tool from the
> > personal preferences that might apply to an individual's listening system.
> >
> > Steve
>
> Good questions Steve. Where have you been anyway?

Steve works in professional audio. That's where he has been.

> The main test of the new speakers will be listening to them. But yes, part
> of the theory is the room, and they will not sound good in a lousy room, but
> there are not that many bad rooms - just the ones that have had Sonex
> plastered all over the place. But in most any normal room of a decent size,
> say 15 ft wide and above, it should sound better. I am well aware of the
> different tastes that are out there, but in a level playing field and done
> blind mine should win, just as my cheaper prototypes did in The Challenge.
> As for the rooms - if you can imagine a live band playing there, then my
> speakers should also sound good there.
>
> Will it do anythiing for mastering? Very possibly.

This is the amazing part of your thought processes. If you put this
stuff you're blathering on about up to Dave Collins, Brad Blackwood, any
mastering engineer working at that level, you will be tossed from the
back court for a three pointer.

> First you could read Dave
> Moulton's whole story. Second, I wonder if you have ever noticed that you
> can't tell much about your work on headphones, even the finest ones.

Wrong, plain and simple. Headphones often reveal lower level detail in
ways that speakers often do not. The presentation is not necessarily
more accurate, but one gets a look at underlying sonic activity with
which one might like to deal in one way or another.

Further, asking one like Steve, a lifelong professional in audio with an
impressive body of work in many environments, is he "has noticed"
something audiowise is to reinforce the point that you know not what you
are talking about, or to whom you are speaking.

>Things
> are a lot clearer on speakers because you get the sound out of your head and
> into a plausible acoustic space, with the room helping with localization and
> spatial effects. If my speaker gets the spatial effects a lot better,
> especially for multiple listeners, then it will indeed be a better mastering
> system. If the sound becomes more three dimensional, it will be a better
> tool for listening into your recordings.
>
> Time will tell.

Time has told, but you haven't looked at a clock.

> Gary Eickmeier

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

hank alrich

February 23rd 14, 04:03 PM

Luxey > wrote:

> ??????, 23. ??????? 2014. 08.56.39 UTC+1, Gary Eickmeier ?? ???????/??:
>
> > Have you ever noticed the difference in spatial qualities among speakers?
> > Direct firing boxes, dipoles, omnis? They all treat the data flowing down
> > the cables differently somehow. The short answer to your question, how do
> > they separate out the direct from the later arriving sounds, is just the
> > precedence effect.
>
> > So how do you expect it to decode out if all you have is the direct sound to
> > your ears? Is there some theory or paradigm or model or scheme by which you
> > are going to recover the spatial patterns that were recorded from just those
> > two speaker boxes?
>
> Gary,
>
> you're obnoxious and inbcapable to comprehend even the most basic
> concepts. I really think you should stop poluting cyber space as it
> belongs to everybody, not only you, so please be nice to your environment.

He has a little maze in his skull in which his consciousness is trapped.
He can't see over the wall, and he can't hear what's said outside of the
maze.

He could so easily be a troll, one able to feign sincerity.

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

Luxey

February 23rd 14, 05:55 PM

недеља, 23. фебруар 2014. 17.03.06 UTC+1, hank alrich је написао/ла:
> Luxey > wrote:
>
>
>
> > ??????, 23. ??????? 2014. 08.56.39 UTC+1, Gary Eickmeier ?? ???????/??:
>
> >
>
> > > Have you ever noticed the difference in spatial qualities among speakers?
>
> > > Direct firing boxes, dipoles, omnis? They all treat the data flowing down
>
> > > the cables differently somehow. The short answer to your question, how do
>
> > > they separate out the direct from the later arriving sounds, is just the
>
> > > precedence effect.
>
> >
>
> > > So how do you expect it to decode out if all you have is the direct sound to
>
> > > your ears? Is there some theory or paradigm or model or scheme by which you
>
> > > are going to recover the spatial patterns that were recorded from just those
>
> > > two speaker boxes?
>
> >
>
> > Gary,
>
> >
>
> > you're obnoxious and inbcapable to comprehend even the most basic
>
> > concepts. I really think you should stop poluting cyber space as it
>
> > belongs to everybody, not only you, so please be nice to your environment.

Tom McCreadie

February 23rd 14, 06:11 PM

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>Have you ever noticed the difference in spatial qualities among speakers?
>Direct firing boxes, dipoles, omnis? They all treat the data flowing down
>the cables differently somehow. The short answer to your question, how do
>they separate out the direct from the later arriving sounds, is just the
>precedence effect.

Gobs of miscommunication flying around here :-)
By 'direct' and 'indirect', I'm referring to:
(a) 'auditorium-direct' (sound source direct to main mics)', and
(b) 'auditorium-ambient' (sounds arriving at mics via roundabout path).

That has to be distinguished from the playback room situation of:
(A) 'speaker output, direct to your head', and
(B) 'speaker output, bounced indirectly via walls/ceiling to your head

The precedence effect is a property of the listener's ear/brain, not a
capability of a loudspeaker I'd been asking how a simple mechanical loudspeaker
- without the help of a built-in supercomputer - can discriminate between the
"a" and "b" sounds, so that only/predominantly "a" gets sent on the "A" path,
and "b" on the "B "path?. As it stands, your speaker is sending "a+b" out on
both paths, with more of "B" than many of us are doing . That is, you're
imposing an ambient room wash on everything. (May well be pleasant and
enjoyable, though.)

>So how do you expect it to decode out if all you have is the direct sound to
>your ears? Is there some theory or paradigm or model or scheme by which you
>are going to recover the spatial patterns that were recorded from just those
>two speaker boxes?

I'm talking about stereo recordings of acoustic/classical, with most of the
sound captured from one main mic array. Except for occasional spots, there's no
close miking. So what finally comes out, say, the L-speaker is the above "a+"b"
info captured by that main L-mic. The differing intensity and temporal info in
those L and R channels provides the spatial clues and suffices to give a
credible stereophonic illusion. This is thoroughly documented and discussed ad
nauseam in the literature. I would urge you to give more thought to the
recording technique theory, maybe revisiting the patents and papers of Blumlein,
Williams and others, rather than to overfocus on speaker building and playback.

>"Localized in each speaker" makes no sense. Not sure what you are referring
>to, but that is not what I would have said. I have experienced, and a lot of
>writers have said, that the stereo soundstage extends only from speaker to
>speaker. A sound panned extreme left will be heard from the left speaker and
>that's that. This is what a lot of people think stereo is - just a lateralization
>of the instruments from right to left. But if you set up your system
>correctly with a lot of multi directional speakers, or especially my IMPs,
>then the walls are part of the speakers and the imaging is from wall
>to wall, rather than speaker to speaker.

With MS, Blumein, XY using supercardioids, and various other arrays, it's
actually quite common, and theoretically expected, to encounter
very-wide-located instruments getting imaged outside the speaker limits. But
such "imaging" tends to be very diffuse and unsettling, rather than sharp. This
arises from one speaker having a reversed polarity signal - because the
instrument is located in the ambiophonic reception sector, thus generating a +ve
voltage at one mic but a -ve at the other.

In your home playback set up, there's a lot of addditional sound energy wafting
over you from those side walls, so I don't doubt that you experience some
sensation of extra "wideness". But I'm skeptical that it's a sharp, non-phasey
imaging at the wide edges.
>
>A really simple example: Suppose you have a player piano, one of those
>Yamahas or similar that can record keystrokes, pressures, everything. It is
>in your listening room. Someone sits down and plays. You then will have
>perfect reproduction by playing that file back on that piano after he
>leaves. Right? But what if we want to do it with speakers? You could, say,
>close-mike the piano and then play it back on speakers positioned in the
>same spot as the piano, and having similar radiation patterns to the piano.
>This should sound identical to the live instrument because the frequencies
>and spatial patterns into the room are the same. The piano sound should also
>have depth, real depth within your room, because the speakers have been
>pulled out from the reflecting surfaces in your room so that the sound
>really IS three dimensional.
>
>But if you play the same recording back by padding that room and using
>direct only speakers it will not sound the same because you have changed the
>spatial nature of the sound fields put into the room. Same data streaming
>down the wires, different (and very wrong) sound.
>

Phew, lots of issues there. As others mentioned, you may need to make a clearer
demarcation between striving for a good recording capture, and striving, later,
for good playback. You tend to toss everything onto the same heap. Your speaker
system isn't a Swiss army knife, to be used to patch up compromised recordings.

In this Yamaha scenario, though, I guess it depends on what the goal is:
1. Want a time-snapshot souvenir of how it really "came across, warts and all"
to the family that night in the sitting room? Perhaps record it from mics near
the sofa position...then play it all back later in a larger room?

2. Just want a polished recording? Perhaps close-mike it, then a decent
Convolution hall-reverb in post? Skimpy wiyj the Revolution Bose wall-reverb :-)
ps. Why not think outside the metaphorical box and get your width cheaply by
pulling your sofa closer to the speakers?
That reminds me of the stingy Scot who renounced the demon drink in his
advancing years. He'd discovered that he could get the same dizzy effect much
cheaper - by standing up abruptly from his couch. :-}
--
Tom McCreadie

"I can't wait to grow old and pretend I'm deaf." - Billy Connolly

S. King

February 23rd 14, 06:25 PM

On Sun, 23 Feb 2014 08:03:05 -0800, hank alrich wrote:

> Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>
>> "S. King" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 01:45:32 -0500, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>> >
>> > BIG SNIP
>> >>
>> >> The experimenting continues. I am building a new speaker design and
>> >> should have it in a month or two. Not sure how to tell the world
>> >> about it yet, but let's see how successful it is before I open my
>> >> mouth. The stakes are high. If I am wrong, I will have to concede to
>> >> all of my naysayers. If I am right,
>> >> it will be the first Image Model Projector and should be the best
>> >> speaker yet... <SNIP>
>> >> Gary
>> >
>> > How will you know if it is the "best speaker yet"? Best implies a
>> > comparison. What specific criteria will you measure? What speakers
>> > will you compare your Image Model Projector to? Your previous
>> > arguments seem to be as much about the listening room as about the
>> > speaker. Will you test your Image Model Projector and other speakers
>> > in the same room? Professionals typically need to make recordings
>> > that translate well on everything from ear buds to automobiles to
>> > living rooms. Will your Image Model Projector help in that
>> > endeavour? It would be useful in these discussions to separate the
>> > requirements of a professional tool from the personal preferences
>> > that might apply to an individual's listening system.
>> >
>> > Steve
>>
>> Good questions Steve. Where have you been anyway?
>
> Steve works in professional audio. That's where he has been.
>
>> The main test of the new speakers will be listening to them. But yes,
>> part of the theory is the room, and they will not sound good in a lousy
>> room, but there are not that many bad rooms - just the ones that have
>> had Sonex plastered all over the place. But in most any normal room of
>> a decent size, say 15 ft wide and above, it should sound better. I am
>> well aware of the different tastes that are out there, but in a level
>> playing field and done blind mine should win, just as my cheaper
>> prototypes did in The Challenge. As for the rooms - if you can imagine
>> a live band playing there, then my speakers should also sound good
>> there.
>>
>> Will it do anythiing for mastering? Very possibly.
>
> This is the amazing part of your thought processes. If you put this
> stuff you're blathering on about up to Dave Collins, Brad Blackwood, any
> mastering engineer working at that level, you will be tossed from the
> back court for a three pointer.
>
>> First you could read Dave Moulton's whole story. Second, I wonder if
>> you have ever noticed that you can't tell much about your work on
>> headphones, even the finest ones.
>
> Wrong, plain and simple. Headphones often reveal lower level detail in
> ways that speakers often do not. The presentation is not necessarily
> more accurate, but one gets a look at underlying sonic activity with
> which one might like to deal in one way or another.
>
> Further, asking one like Steve, a lifelong professional in audio with an
> impressive body of work in many environments, is he "has noticed"
> something audiowise is to reinforce the point that you know not what you
> are talking about, or to whom you are speaking.
>
>>Things
>> are a lot clearer on speakers because you get the sound out of your
>> head and into a plausible acoustic space, with the room helping with
>> localization and spatial effects. If my speaker gets the spatial
>> effects a lot better, especially for multiple listeners, then it will
>> indeed be a better mastering system. If the sound becomes more three
>> dimensional, it will be a better tool for listening into your
>> recordings.
>>
>> Time will tell.
>
> Time has told, but you haven't looked at a clock.
>
>> Gary Eickmeier

It sounds to me as if Gary is talking about a speaker enclosure that also
happens to be room-sized and he doesn't seem to be much involved with the
dimensions of that speaker enclosure. Gary says that there are not many
bad rooms and if we get rid of the Sonex and if the room is 15 feet wide
or more, length must not be important since he doesn't mention that, we
should be good to go with his speakers in their random enclosure, meaning
the room. That seems to me to be a formula for introducing many, many
random uncontrolled environmental factors, which are more likely to screw
up the sound than to enhance it. Professionals size the listening room to
accepted ideals to the extent possible and apply treatments to compensate
as necessary, all with the goal of hearing what was recorded and as little
the room's unwanted contribution as possible. Unfortunately, for Gary and
the rest of us, we all listen with essentially a surround sound system of
ears and brain. So, we crave the real-world stimuli we're used to of
sound coming from behind, above, all around us. I believe that Gary
craves that "surround" sound enough so that he is willing to accept a
listening experience that trades reality for something "personally
pleasing". I prefer for the listening room to just stay out of the way as
much as possible. In truth, there's probably enough people who feel the
way Gary does that there is a market for a sound system with "that added
something extra". (Grin) After all, Bose found a hot button for a lot of
people. Better than real **is** better isn't it?

Steve

Gary Eickmeier

February 23rd 14, 09:39 PM

"S. King" > wrote in message
...

> It sounds to me as if Gary is talking about a speaker enclosure that also
> happens to be room-sized and he doesn't seem to be much involved with the
> dimensions of that speaker enclosure. Gary says that there are not many
> bad rooms and if we get rid of the Sonex and if the room is 15 feet wide
> or more, length must not be important since he doesn't mention that, we
> should be good to go with his speakers in their random enclosure, meaning
> the room. That seems to me to be a formula for introducing many, many
> random uncontrolled environmental factors, which are more likely to screw
> up the sound than to enhance it. Professionals size the listening room to
> accepted ideals to the extent possible and apply treatments to compensate
> as necessary, all with the goal of hearing what was recorded and as little
> the room's unwanted contribution as possible. Unfortunately, for Gary and
> the rest of us, we all listen with essentially a surround sound system of
> ears and brain. So, we crave the real-world stimuli we're used to of
> sound coming from behind, above, all around us. I believe that Gary
> craves that "surround" sound enough so that he is willing to accept a
> listening experience that trades reality for something "personally
> pleasing". I prefer for the listening room to just stay out of the way as
> much as possible. In truth, there's probably enough people who feel the
> way Gary does that there is a market for a sound system with "that added
> something extra". (Grin) After all, Bose found a hot button for a lot of
> people. Better than real **is** better isn't it?
>
> Steve

No. I know you're trying your best to find how I am wrong, all wrong, but
please read my response to Summerwerck in the Beolab 5 thread. And try to
see my point, rather than disagree with everything I am saying because it is
popular to gang up on me.

Are there any areas that you can agree with me on? Perhaps that "The Big
Three" of radiation pattern, speaker positioning, and room acoustics are
audible? Perhaps the possibility that some of those aspects are more correct
than others? Perhaps the possibility that I have learned something about
this that I would love to communicate?

It's a little like ordering at McDonald's. You tell them exactly and
precisely what you want, in McDonald speak, and you get something different
because they were not listening to you, they were putting their own take on
it.

"A senior coffee with cream, please." "Do you want sugar in that?"

"A small chocolate shake plain, please." "You don't want any whipped cream
or cherry on top?"

Listen.

Gary

Gary Eickmeier

February 23rd 14, 10:43 PM

Tom McCreadie wrote:
> Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>> Have you ever noticed the difference in spatial qualities among
>> speakers?
>> Direct firing boxes, dipoles, omnis? They all treat the data flowing
>> down
>> the cables differently somehow. The short answer to your question,
>> how do
>> they separate out the direct from the later arriving sounds, is just
>> the precedence effect.
>
> Gobs of miscommunication flying around here :-)
> By 'direct' and 'indirect', I'm referring to:
> (a) 'auditorium-direct' (sound source direct to main mics)', and
> (b) 'auditorium-ambient' (sounds arriving at mics via roundabout
> path).

Yes, that is obvious.
>
> That has to be distinguished from the playback room situation of:
> (A) 'speaker output, direct to your head', and
> (B) 'speaker output, bounced indirectly via walls/ceiling to your
> head

Yes.
>
> The precedence effect is a property of the listener's ear/brain, not a
> capability of a loudspeaker I'd been asking how a simple mechanical
> loudspeaker - without the help of a built-in supercomputer - can
> discriminate between the "a" and "b" sounds, so that
> only/predominantly "a" gets sent on the "A" path, and "b" on the "B
> "path?. As it stands, your speaker is sending "a+b" out on both
> paths, with more of "B" than many of us are doing . That is, you're
> imposing an ambient room wash on everything. (May well be pleasant
> and enjoyable, though.)

Yes, that is the main question to ask, which shows that you are at least
listening to me. It is also the hardest to explain, but I have heard it many
times. For example, if it is a tight, dry recording with little ambience at
all, the audible effect of the image model is a harmless image shift toward
the reflecting surfaces. The audible effect of that is that the auditory
event comes from a point in space behind the plane of the speakers, and
sometimes if it is panned all the way left, hehind and beside the left
speaker. It is an unmistakable aerial image much like a hologram or an
object in a concave mirror that seems to be standing in space. In a
correctly designed and deployed system NOTHING is heard to be coming
directly from one of the speakers.

If, however, the recording contains the usual reverberance from left, right
and front walls of the auditorium, those sounds will be arriving later in
time at the microphones, and in my model can clearly be heard from wider and
deeper than the direct sounds. IOW, a nicely wet recording will take on the
entire width of the room, wall to wall, rather than just the above described
slightly left of left speaker and behind the plane of the speakers to
slightly right of right speaker.

Why why why. My best proposition - the first arrival sounds in the recording
will be first heard from the actual speakers, localizing them there, and
this is a very strong effect, and there can be only one first arrival. Any
reverberance from this instrument in the recording will usually be (of
course later) and coming from further toward the side walls of the
auditorium, so if the balances are right in your playback model, the
Precedence of the first arrival sounds will set them off from the Loudness
of the reflected sounds, which in my model come from very much wider
incident angles on playback than if they were all shoved thru the main
speakers only.

This would be a great subject for the psychoacousticians to experient with.
You could take a single sound event, maybe a bell or a piano note with and
without the sustain, and record it first with no reverberance, then with
some sustain and bouncing its sound off the side wall of the studio. Play
that back through various speaker types and see if a reflecting speaker can
decode that sound better than one that pumps all of its sound out the
grillcloth in front.

>> So how do you expect it to decode out if all you have is the direct
>> sound to your ears? Is there some theory or paradigm or model or
>> scheme by which you
>> are going to recover the spatial patterns that were recorded from
>> just those
>> two speaker boxes?
>
> I'm talking about stereo recordings of acoustic/classical, with most
> of the sound captured from one main mic array. Except for occasional
> spots, there's no close miking. So what finally comes out, say, the
> L-speaker is the above "a+"b" info captured by that main L-mic. The
> differing intensity and temporal info in those L and R channels
> provides the spatial clues and suffices to give a credible
> stereophonic illusion. This is thoroughly documented and discussed ad
> nauseam in the literature. I would urge you to give more thought to
> the recording technique theory, maybe revisiting the patents and
> papers of Blumlein, Williams and others, rather than to overfocus on
> speaker building and playback.

No not quite. The differing intensities and temporal info in the L and R
channels provides the intensity and temporal cues to the speakers, but not
the spatial cues. Those must be physically reconstructed on playback, by
means of speaker design and placement in a real room with some
reflectivity - or else you can use extra speakers on time delay placed
strategically where the main reflections come from, but if you do NOT
reconstruct the spatial nature of the sounds that were recorded you will not
magically just "hear" them on playback. Refer to the anechoic listening
experience. Also, yes we are more like close miking the soundstage, as
opposed to placing the mikes farther away at a typical listening seat in the
hall.

And yes, sure, I have studied most of the recording techniques and have
tried to learn recording, to complete the loop on everything that I know and
have learned about the process. That is why I am here, to learn what you
expereinced practitioners know, as opposed to trying to learn everything
from the textbooks. The whole process tends to get you inside Toole's Circle
of Confusion so that you are less confused. There is a direct relationship
between recording and reproduction that I need to know, to figure out who is
doing what to who(m). So to speak.
>
>> "Localized in each speaker" makes no sense. Not sure what you are
>> referring
>> to, but that is not what I would have said. I have experienced, and
>> a lot of writers have said, that the stereo soundstage extends only
>> from speaker to speaker. A sound panned extreme left will be heard
>> from the left speaker and that's that. This is what a lot of people
>> think stereo is - just a lateralization of the instruments from
>> right to left. But if you set up your system
>> correctly with a lot of multi directional speakers, or especially my
>> IMPs,
>> then the walls are part of the speakers and the imaging is from wall
>> to wall, rather than speaker to speaker.
>
> With MS, Blumein, XY using supercardioids, and various other arrays,
> it's actually quite common, and theoretically expected, to encounter
> very-wide-located instruments getting imaged outside the speaker
> limits. But such "imaging" tends to be very diffuse and unsettling,
> rather than sharp. This arises from one speaker having a reversed
> polarity signal - because the instrument is located in the
> ambiophonic reception sector, thus generating a +ve voltage at one
> mic but a -ve at the other.
>
> In your home playback set up, there's a lot of addditional sound
> energy wafting over you from those side walls, so I don't doubt that
> you experience some sensation of extra "wideness". But I'm skeptical
> that it's a sharp, non-phasey imaging at the wide edges.

I must report that yes, it is just as sharp at the wide edges - for the
direct sounds of course.

>>
>> A really simple example: Suppose you have a player piano, one of
>> those
>> Yamahas or similar that can record keystrokes, pressures,
>> everything. It is
>> in your listening room. Someone sits down and plays. You then will
>> have
>> perfect reproduction by playing that file back on that piano after he
>> leaves. Right? But what if we want to do it with speakers? You
>> could, say, close-mike the piano and then play it back on speakers
>> positioned in the
>> same spot as the piano, and having similar radiation patterns to the
>> piano.
>> This should sound identical to the live instrument because the
>> frequencies
>> and spatial patterns into the room are the same. The piano sound
>> should also have depth, real depth within your room, because the
>> speakers have been
>> pulled out from the reflecting surfaces in your room so that the
>> sound
>> really IS three dimensional.
>>
>> But if you play the same recording back by padding that room and
>> using
>> direct only speakers it will not sound the same because you have
>> changed the spatial nature of the sound fields put into the room.
>> Same data streaming
>> down the wires, different (and very wrong) sound.
>>
>
> Phew, lots of issues there. As others mentioned, you may need to make
> a clearer demarcation between striving for a good recording capture,
> and striving, later, for good playback. You tend to toss everything
> onto the same heap. Your speaker system isn't a Swiss army knife, to
> be used to patch up compromised recordings.

I thought you might read that with the wrong intent. I am just illustrating
the need to reconstruct the spatial nature of sounds on playback. You don't
just "hear" the sound from some kind of "accurate" speaker going straight to
your ears. You hear the spatial nature of all real sounds bing made in your
room, and if you change that spatial nature you can hear that.
>
> In this Yamaha scenario, though, I guess it depends on what the goal
> is:
> 1. Want a time-snapshot souvenir of how it really "came across, warts
> and all" to the family that night in the sitting room? Perhaps record
> it from mics near the sofa position...then play it all back later in
> a larger room?

The playback room definitely superimposes itself onto the recorded sound,
but there are ways to minimize the bad effects and maximize the beneficial
effects so that the flavor and spatial nature of the original comes through
even better than if you paid no attention to it on playback.
>
> 2. Just want a polished recording? Perhaps close-mike it, then a
> decent Convolution hall-reverb in post? Skimpy wiyj the Revolution
> Bose wall-reverb :-) ps. Why not think outside the metaphorical box
> and get your width cheaply by pulling your sofa closer to the
> speakers?
> That reminds me of the stingy Scot who renounced the demon drink in
> his advancing years. He'd discovered that he could get the same dizzy
> effect much cheaper - by standing up abruptly from his couch. :-}

Scots and scotch aside, I hope I have closed some of the differences between
us and explained the idea a little better. It's not easy when your whole
audience is plugging their ears and talking among themselves and throwing
spitballs. Anyway, thanks for the chance to explain one more time.

Gary

Tom McCreadie

February 23rd 14, 11:44 PM

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>>
>> In your home playback set up, there's a lot of addditional sound
>> energy wafting over you from those side walls, so I don't doubt that
>> you experience some sensation of extra "wideness". But I'm skeptical
>> that it's a sharp, non-phasey imaging at the wide edges.
>
>I must report that yes, it is just as sharp at the wide edges - for the
>direct sounds of course.

There's no such thing as "imaging of the direct sound"
There's just imaging. Period

geoff

February 23rd 14, 11:48 PM

On 24/02/2014 11:43 a.m., Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> Tom McCreadie wrote:
>> Gary Eickmeier wrote:

.... quite a lot.

Reminds of that song "Sometimes I Think Too Much".

geoff

PS Now I'm jealous of not having a MASSIVE thread with my name on it ;-o

Luxey

February 24th 14, 01:03 AM

Just remembered something, thankes to Gary who took care to remind me.
Most likely he his not a troll, but just a delusional psycho case.

Some time ago, I've searched for his AES paper, did not want to be uninformed.
Alas, i forgot about it all. Most likely because there was nothing to read in
that paper. Same fairytale story, already repeated too many times on this group.
So, Gary, ok, one posibility is out of the question, you're not one sick pervert, as in "just a troll".

You're just sick, as in "serious about own ideas".

Gary Eickmeier

February 24th 14, 03:17 AM

Tom McCreadie wrote:
> Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>>>
>>> In your home playback set up, there's a lot of addditional sound
>>> energy wafting over you from those side walls, so I don't doubt that
>>> you experience some sensation of extra "wideness". But I'm skeptical
>>> that it's a sharp, non-phasey imaging at the wide edges.
>>
>> I must report that yes, it is just as sharp at the wide edges - for
>> the direct sounds of course.
>
> There's no such thing as "imaging of the direct sound"
> There's just imaging. Period

Imaging of the first arrival sound - the musical instruments.

Gary

Gary Eickmeier

February 24th 14, 03:19 AM

Luxey wrote:
> Just remembered something, thankes to Gary who took care to remind me.
> Most likely he his not a troll, but just a delusional psycho case.
>
> Some time ago, I've searched for his AES paper, did not want to be
> uninformed.
> Alas, i forgot about it all. Most likely because there was nothing to
> read in
> that paper. Same fairytale story, already repeated too many times on
> this group.
> So, Gary, ok, one posibility is out of the question, you're not one
> sick pervert, as in "just a troll".
>
> You're just sick, as in "serious about own ideas".

Well, it's a pleasure to be mocked by such a prestigious group!

Gary

hank alrich

February 24th 14, 03:43 AM

geoff > wrote:

> On 24/02/2014 11:43 a.m., Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> > Tom McCreadie wrote:
> >> Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
> ... quite a lot.
>
> Reminds of that song "Sometimes I Think Too Much".
>
> geoff
>
> PS Now I'm jealous of not having a MASSIVE thread with my name on it ;-o

Well, gitcha some of them Esob speakers and go for convincing folks they
bring ya to tears.

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

Luxey

February 24th 14, 07:20 AM

понедељак, 24. фебруар 2014. 04.19.36 UTC+1, Gary Eickmeier је написао/ла:
> Luxey wrote:
>
> > Just remembered something, thankes to Gary who took care to remind me.
>
> > Most likely he his not a troll, but just a delusional psycho case.
>
> >
>
> > Some time ago, I've searched for his AES paper, did not want to be
>
> > uninformed.
>
> > Alas, i forgot about it all. Most likely because there was nothing to
>
> > read in
>
> > that paper. Same fairytale story, already repeated too many times on
>
> > this group.
>
> > So, Gary, ok, one posibility is out of the question, you're not one
>
> > sick pervert, as in "just a troll".
>
> >
>
> > You're just sick, as in "serious about own ideas".
>
>
>
> Well, it's a pleasure to be mocked by such a prestigious group!
>
>
>
> Gary

Gary,

you are harassing the group by repeating one same thing over and over again.. Buy now it should have been clear to you, nobody arround here thinks there's anything of importance in your story. We al know what it is, and there's no need to be remoinded every other day. You're lucky nobody's willing to report you to Google, or whoever is administrating your account.
It's time to stop. IMO, of course.

david gourley[_2_]

February 24th 14, 01:08 PM

"Gary Eickmeier" >
:

-snip-

>
> It's a little like ordering at McDonald's. You tell them exactly and
> precisely what you want, in McDonald speak, and you get something
> different because they were not listening to you, they were putting
> their own take on it.

No, they are delivering a product that was designed to be delivered one
way for efficiency. If you want it 'your way,' go to freakin' Burger
King.

"McDonald speak," really? Where can I find that book?

david

-snip again-

Gary Eickmeier

February 24th 14, 01:22 PM

david gourley wrote:
> "Gary Eickmeier" >
> :
>
> -snip-
>
>>
>> It's a little like ordering at McDonald's. You tell them exactly and
>> precisely what you want, in McDonald speak, and you get something
>> different because they were not listening to you, they were putting
>> their own take on it.
>
> No, they are delivering a product that was designed to be delivered
> one way for efficiency. If you want it 'your way,' go to freakin'
> Burger King.
>
> "McDonald speak," really? Where can I find that book?
>
> david

OMG I don't think you got even that simple point. You read it with your
trigger finger ready.

Gary

Gary Eickmeier

February 24th 14, 01:35 PM

Luxey wrote:

> Gary,
>
> you are harassing the group by repeating one same thing over and over
> again. Buy now it should have been clear to you, nobody arround here
> thinks there's anything of importance in your story. We al know what
> it is, and there's no need to be remoinded every other day. You're
> lucky nobody's willing to report you to Google, or whoever is
> administrating your account.
> It's time to stop. IMO, of course.

In most every instance of appearing in this and the other threads I am
answering someone else's post. In this thread, I was simply contributing to
the conversation about Ethan's book, that the whole book was available
online (or almost, as it turns out) which he would probably like to know,
with its high price. The Beolab 5 thread was just a question whether anyone
has heard that speaker and whether it would be a great studio monitor. Most
interetingly, Nick Goldblatz chimed in, in agreement with me and my
observations about sound and rooms.

To me, this subject is one of the most interesting and the least settled as
far as the science of it goes. Apparently the group agrees, from the length
of some of these threads. If it could be kept on a gentlemanly discussion
level rather than some feeling that their authority is being sniped at, it
would be more productive.

If you don't find this subject interesting, then just let it drop.

Gary

John Williamson

February 24th 14, 02:08 PM

On 24/02/2014 13:22, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> david gourley wrote:
>> "Gary Eickmeier" >
>> :
>>
>> -snip-
>>
>>>
>>> It's a little like ordering at McDonald's. You tell them exactly and
>>> precisely what you want, in McDonald speak, and you get something
>>> different because they were not listening to you, they were putting
>>> their own take on it.
>>
>> No, they are delivering a product that was designed to be delivered
>> one way for efficiency. If you want it 'your way,' go to freakin'
>> Burger King.
>>
>> "McDonald speak," really? Where can I find that book?
>>
>> david
>
> OMG I don't think you got even that simple point. You read it with your
> trigger finger ready.
>
Sorry, you're the one that doesn't get the point about McDeadthings. You
can have whatever you wish, as long as it's on the menu. If it's not on
the menu, you don't get it. If you want a McMuffin, don't go in after
11am. If you want a burger, don't go in at breakfast time. Yes, you can
order a "grill", but all you can get is the standard burger with bits
missing, and you can't, for instance, order one with extra garlic, as
that's not on the list.

The advantage is that you know exactly what you're going to get before
you go through the door. The disadvantage is that you know exactly what
you're going to get before you go through the door.

As`far as reproduction goes, you don't seem to see the difference
between the McDonalds approach of one fits all, and as long as it sells
well, who cares about the niceties (The consumer audio and Bose
approach) and the burger restaurant approach where each meal is made to
order (The pro studio approach, where each studio and control room is
made to measure, including whatever is needed by whoever is
commissioning it.)
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

S. King

February 24th 14, 04:28 PM

On Sun, 23 Feb 2014 16:39:26 -0500, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

> "S. King" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> It sounds to me as if Gary is talking about a speaker enclosure that
>> also happens to be room-sized and he doesn't seem to be much involved
>> with the dimensions of that speaker enclosure. Gary says that there
>> are not many bad rooms and if we get rid of the Sonex and if the room
>> is 15 feet wide or more, length must not be important since he doesn't
>> mention that, we should be good to go with his speakers in their random
>> enclosure, meaning the room. That seems to me to be a formula for
>> introducing many, many random uncontrolled environmental factors, which
>> are more likely to screw up the sound than to enhance it.
>> Professionals size the listening room to accepted ideals to the extent
>> possible and apply treatments to compensate as necessary, all with the
>> goal of hearing what was recorded and as little the room's unwanted
>> contribution as possible. Unfortunately, for Gary and the rest of us,
>> we all listen with essentially a surround sound system of ears and
>> brain. So, we crave the real-world stimuli we're used to of sound
>> coming from behind, above, all around us. I believe that Gary craves
>> that "surround" sound enough so that he is willing to accept a
>> listening experience that trades reality for something "personally
>> pleasing". I prefer for the listening room to just stay out of the way
>> as much as possible. In truth, there's probably enough people who feel
>> the way Gary does that there is a market for a sound system with "that
>> added something extra". (Grin) After all, Bose found a hot button for
>> a lot of people. Better than real **is** better isn't it?
>>
>> Steve
>
> No. I know you're trying your best to find how I am wrong, all wrong,
> but please read my response to Summerwerck in the Beolab 5 thread. And
> try to see my point, rather than disagree with everything I am saying
> because it is popular to gang up on me.
>

I have zero interest in ganging up on you. I am simply commenting on what
you have written.

> Are there any areas that you can agree with me on? Perhaps that "The Big
> Three" of radiation pattern, speaker positioning, and room acoustics are
> audible? Perhaps the possibility that some of those aspects are more
> correct than others? Perhaps the possibility that I have learned
> something about this that I would love to communicate?

You've never been in a good mastering room, so you say, so I don't think
you have a clue about what you're arguing against. Until you understand
the old idea its hard to make a case for a new idea.

> It's a little like ordering at McDonald's. You tell them exactly and
> precisely what you want, in McDonald speak, and you get something
> different because they were not listening to you, they were putting
> their own take on it.
>
> "A senior coffee with cream, please." "Do you want sugar in that?"
>
> "A small chocolate shake plain, please." "You don't want any whipped
> cream or cherry on top?"

I believe that you are describing something that many here are accusing
you of.

Steve

S. King

February 24th 14, 04:43 PM

On Sun, 23 Feb 2014 17:43:06 -0500, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

> Tom McCreadie wrote:

BIG SNIP

As it stands,
>> your speaker is sending "a+b" out on both paths, with more of "B" than
>> many of us are doing . That is, you're imposing an ambient room wash on
>> everything. (May well be pleasant and enjoyable, though.)

Gary Replied:

> Yes, that is the main question to ask, which shows that you are at least
> listening to me. It is also the hardest to explain, but I have heard it
> many times. For example, if it is a tight, dry recording with little
> ambience at all, the audible effect of the image model is a harmless
> image shift toward the reflecting surfaces. The audible effect of that
> is that the auditory event comes from a point in space behind the plane
> of the speakers, and sometimes if it is panned all the way left, hehind
> and beside the left speaker. It is an unmistakable aerial image much
> like a hologram or an object in a concave mirror that seems to be
> standing in space. In a correctly designed and deployed system NOTHING
> is heard to be coming directly from one of the speakers.

EXACTLY! In your system a guitar recorded through a direct box panned
full left will not be perceived as coming directly from the speaker; an
ambient wash of sound from your 'system' will be super-imposed on it.
Right? As Tom says above, it may be pleasant to you, but it isn't what
was recorded.

If you spent a hundredth of the time that you spend writing about your
great new idea actually experiencing some of the better mastering rooms,
you might have something to say. Go do that.

Steve

hank alrich

February 24th 14, 04:51 PM

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:

> To me, this subject is one of the most interesting and the least settled as
> far as the science of it goes. Apparently the group agrees, from the length
> of some of these threads. If it could be kept on a gentlemanly discussion
> level rather than some feeling that their authority is being sniped at, it
> would be more productive.

You appear almost completely unable to read for content. "The Group" has
been trying to get fine points and bold spears through your skull for
quite a while now. Your forebrain appears well armored.

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

PStamler

February 24th 14, 06:16 PM

On Monday, February 24, 2014 7:35:57 AM UTC-6, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> Most interetingly, Nick Goldblatz chimed in, in agreement with me and my
> observations about sound and rooms.

Gary's listening ability is illustrated perfectly by this sentence. The gentleman in question was *not* "in agreement with me and my observations about sound and rooms".

And his name isn't Goldblatz; it's Batzdorf.

Peace,
Paul

hank alrich

February 24th 14, 08:03 PM

PStamler > wrote:

> On Monday, February 24, 2014 7:35:57 AM UTC-6, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> > Most interetingly, Nick Goldblatz chimed in, in agreement with me and my
> > observations about sound and rooms.
>
> Gary's listening ability is illustrated perfectly by this sentence. The
> gentleman in question was *not* "in agreement with me and my observations
> about sound and rooms".
>
> And his name isn't Goldblatz; it's Batzdorf.
>
> Peace,
> Paul

Details, schmeetales…

Sisyphus had it easy.

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

Gary Eickmeier

February 25th 14, 06:23 AM

"John Williamson" > wrote in message
...
> On 24/02/2014 13:22, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>> david gourley wrote:
>>> "Gary Eickmeier" >
>>> :
>>>
>>> -snip-
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's a little like ordering at McDonald's. You tell them exactly and
>>>> precisely what you want, in McDonald speak, and you get something
>>>> different because they were not listening to you, they were putting
>>>> their own take on it.
>>>
>>> No, they are delivering a product that was designed to be delivered
>>> one way for efficiency. If you want it 'your way,' go to freakin'
>>> Burger King.
>>>
>>> "McDonald speak," really? Where can I find that book?
>>>
>>> david
>>
>> OMG I don't think you got even that simple point. You read it with your
>> trigger finger ready.
>>
> Sorry, you're the one that doesn't get the point about McDeadthings. You
> can have whatever you wish, as long as it's on the menu. If it's not on
> the menu, you don't get it. If you want a McMuffin, don't go in after
> 11am. If you want a burger, don't go in at breakfast time. Yes, you can
> order a "grill", but all you can get is the standard burger with bits
> missing, and you can't, for instance, order one with extra garlic, as
> that's not on the list.
>
> The advantage is that you know exactly what you're going to get before you
> go through the door. The disadvantage is that you know exactly what you're
> going to get before you go through the door.
>
> As`far as reproduction goes, you don't seem to see the difference between
> the McDonalds approach of one fits all, and as long as it sells well, who
> cares about the niceties (The consumer audio and Bose approach) and the
> burger restaurant approach where each meal is made to order (The pro
> studio approach, where each studio and control room is made to measure,
> including whatever is needed by whoever is commissioning it.)
> --
> Tciao for Now!

Thanks for the insight John, but permit me to parse my example.

It's a little like ordering at McDonald's. You tell them exactly and
precisely what you want...

You order off the menu

in McDonald speak ...

in terms that are standard at McDonalds, terms that appear on their keyboard
buttons and on the receipt that you get, terms that they will all understand

and you get something different
because they were not listening to you, they were putting their own take on
it....

They may be daydreaming, they may think everyone who orders cream must want
sugar too, they may think that you don't know their menu - or they may not
be listening.

"A senior coffee with cream, please." "Do you want sugar in that?"

No, I want exactly and precisely what I ordered - a senior coffee with
cream.

"A small chocolate shake plain, please." "You don't want any whipped cream
or cherry on top?"

No, the "plain" is their own term for no whipped cream or cherry on top.

Listen...

Listen.

End of parsing. See?

Now John, are you saying that coffee is not on their menu, that I am
insisting on something that is non standard, or that cream is not available
without sugar? Are you saying that chocolate milk shakes are not a
McDonald's item, or that everyone must take the whipped cream and cherry on
top? I really, really want to know your answer to that, to see how the
contrarian mind works. What were you trying to explain to me in that post?

Gary Eickmeie
Graduate of McDonald's drive through lane

Gary Eickmeier

February 25th 14, 06:40 AM

"S. King" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 23 Feb 2014 16:39:26 -0500, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
>> "S. King" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> It sounds to me as if Gary is talking about a speaker enclosure that
>>> also happens to be room-sized and he doesn't seem to be much involved
>>> with the dimensions of that speaker enclosure.

and so on.

> I believe that you are describing something that many here are accusing
> you of.
>
>
> Steve

No, I am saying that I have written extensively about the relationship
between the speakers and the room and you have me building speakers with
room sized enclosures. That is a great way to make me look silly, but has
nothing to do with anything I have said, only what it "sounds like" to you
on casual reading.

So I alone am putting speakers in rooms? Nobody else has this problem? And
my world encounters rooms of various dimensions, but yours does not? You do
all of your listening near field, so the room is not a factor?

I think there are several levels of miscommunication going on here.

It's kind of like ordering at Burger King... Well - much better example for
Steve King!

Gary

Gary Eickmeier

February 25th 14, 06:53 AM

"S. King" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 23 Feb 2014 17:43:06 -0500, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
>> Tom McCreadie wrote:
>
> BIG SNIP
>
> As it stands,
>>> your speaker is sending "a+b" out on both paths, with more of "B" than
>>> many of us are doing . That is, you're imposing an ambient room wash on
>>> everything. (May well be pleasant and enjoyable, though.)
>
> Gary Replied:
>
>> Yes, that is the main question to ask, which shows that you are at least
>> listening to me. It is also the hardest to explain, but I have heard it
>> many times. For example, if it is a tight, dry recording with little
>> ambience at all, the audible effect of the image model is a harmless
>> image shift toward the reflecting surfaces. The audible effect of that
>> is that the auditory event comes from a point in space behind the plane
>> of the speakers, and sometimes if it is panned all the way left, hehind
>> and beside the left speaker. It is an unmistakable aerial image much
>> like a hologram or an object in a concave mirror that seems to be
>> standing in space. In a correctly designed and deployed system NOTHING
>> is heard to be coming directly from one of the speakers.
>
> EXACTLY! In your system a guitar recorded through a direct box panned
> full left will not be perceived as coming directly from the speaker; an
> ambient wash of sound from your 'system' will be super-imposed on it.
> Right? As Tom says above, it may be pleasant to you, but it isn't what
> was recorded.
>
> If you spent a hundredth of the time that you spend writing about your
> great new idea actually experiencing some of the better mastering rooms,
> you might have something to say. Go do that.
>
> Steve

Go to Dave Moulton's mastering studio or Siegfried Linkwitz's home studio or
read their material and explanations of the Auditory Scene and phantom
imaging.

Go do that.

Gary

nickbatz

February 25th 14, 09:04 PM

Scott wrote:

"A violin, for instance, radiates sound in all directions but
is very beamy at a few specific frequencies and you need to hit those beams
accurately with your measurements. You might not need the most precise of
positioning info but you will need the most precise of spectrum info."

Slightly OT, are you familiar VSL's MIR?

It's more for their samples than for other sources, but it's pretty damn clever:

http://www.vsl.co.at/en/65/71/1989/1678.vsl

geoff

February 26th 14, 05:14 AM

On 26/02/2014 10:04 a.m., nickbatz wrote:
> Scott wrote:
>
> "A violin, for instance, radiates sound in all directions but
> is very beamy at a few specific frequencies and you need to hit those beams
> accurately with your measurements. You might not need the most precise of
> positioning info but you will need the most precise of spectrum info."
>
> Slightly OT, are you familiar VSL's MIR?
>
> It's more for their samples than for other sources, but it's pretty damn clever:
>
> http://www.vsl.co.at/en/65/71/1989/1678.vsl
>

I guess cellos have a different radiation pattern though:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT3SBzmDxGk#t=177

geoff

hank alrich

February 26th 14, 06:15 AM

geoff > wrote:

> On 26/02/2014 10:04 a.m., nickbatz wrote:
> > Scott wrote:
> >
> > "A violin, for instance, radiates sound in all directions but is very
> > beamy at a few specific frequencies and you need to hit those beams
> > accurately with your measurements. You might not need the most precise
> > of positioning info but you will need the most precise of spectrum
> > info."
> >
> > Slightly OT, are you familiar VSL's MIR?
> >
> > It's more for their samples than for other sources, but it's pretty damn
> >clever:
> >
> > http://www.vsl.co.at/en/65/71/1989/1678.vsl
> >
>
>
> I guess cellos have a different radiation pattern though:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT3SBzmDxGk#t=177
>
> geoff

Well, you got your Fukushima cello, and your Chernobyl cello, and your
Three Mile Island cello.

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

Scott Dorsey

February 26th 14, 02:29 PM

geoff > wrote:
>
>I guess cellos have a different radiation pattern though:
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT3SBzmDxGk#t=177

I don't know where those are miked from but that has to be the weirdest
and most unnatural cello sound I have ever heard.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Ron C[_2_]

February 26th 14, 03:19 PM

On 2/26/2014 1:15 AM, hank alrich wrote:
> geoff > wrote:
>
>> On 26/02/2014 10:04 a.m., nickbatz wrote:
>>> Scott wrote:
>>>
>>> "A violin, for instance, radiates sound in all directions but is very
>>> beamy at a few specific frequencies and you need to hit those beams
>>> accurately with your measurements. You might not need the most precise
>>> of positioning info but you will need the most precise of spectrum
>>> info."
>>>
>>> Slightly OT, are you familiar VSL's MIR?
>>>
>>> It's more for their samples than for other sources, but it's pretty damn
>>> clever:
>>>
>>> http://www.vsl.co.at/en/65/71/1989/1678.vsl
>>>
>>
>>
>> I guess cellos have a different radiation pattern though:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT3SBzmDxGk#t=177
>>
>> geoff
>
> Well, you got your Fukushima cello, and your Chernobyl cello, and your
> Three Mile Island cello.
>
Like totally rad. <G>
==
L...
RC
--

Frank Stearns

February 26th 14, 03:46 PM

Ron C > writes:

>On 2/26/2014 1:15 AM, hank alrich wrote:
>> geoff > wrote:
>>
>>> On 26/02/2014 10:04 a.m., nickbatz wrote:
>>>> Scott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "A violin, for instance, radiates sound in all directions but is very
>>>> beamy at a few specific frequencies and you need to hit those beams
>>>> accurately with your measurements. You might not need the most precise
>>>> of positioning info but you will need the most precise of spectrum
>>>> info."
>>>>
>>>> Slightly OT, are you familiar VSL's MIR?
>>>>
>>>> It's more for their samples than for other sources, but it's pretty damn
>>>> clever:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.vsl.co.at/en/65/71/1989/1678.vsl
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I guess cellos have a different radiation pattern though:
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT3SBzmDxGk#t=177
>>>
>>> geoff
>>
>> Well, you got your Fukushima cello, and your Chernobyl cello, and your
>> Three Mile Island cello.
>>
>Like totally rad. <G>

Let's not go critical over this...

Frank
--

Ron C[_2_]

February 26th 14, 06:49 PM

On 2/26/2014 12:46 PM, Jeff Henig wrote:
> Frank Stearns > wrote:
>> Ron C > writes:
>>
>>> On 2/26/2014 1:15 AM, hank alrich wrote:
>>>> geoff > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 26/02/2014 10:04 a.m., nickbatz wrote:
>>>>>> Scott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "A violin, for instance, radiates sound in all directions but is very
>>>>>> beamy at a few specific frequencies and you need to hit those beams
>>>>>> accurately with your measurements. You might not need the most precise
>>>>>> of positioning info but you will need the most precise of spectrum
>>>>>> info."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Slightly OT, are you familiar VSL's MIR?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's more for their samples than for other sources, but it's pretty damn
>>>>>> clever:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.vsl.co.at/en/65/71/1989/1678.vsl
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess cellos have a different radiation pattern though:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT3SBzmDxGk#t=177
>>>>>
>>>>> geoff
>>>>
>>>> Well, you got your Fukushima cello, and your Chernobyl cello, and your
>>>> Three Mile Island cello.
>>>>
>>> Like totally rad. <G>
>>
>> Let's not go critical over this...
>>
>
> Well, what kind of reaction did you expect?
>
> ---Jeff
>
But with no moderator there's could be a melt down!

==
Later...
Ron C
--

Frank Stearns

February 26th 14, 07:36 PM

Jeff Henig > writes:

>Frank Stearns > wrote:
>> Ron C > writes:
>>
>>> On 2/26/2014 1:15 AM, hank alrich wrote:
>>>> geoff > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 26/02/2014 10:04 a.m., nickbatz wrote:
>>>>>> Scott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "A violin, for instance, radiates sound in all directions but is very
>>>>>> beamy at a few specific frequencies and you need to hit those beams
>>>>>> accurately with your measurements. You might not need the most precise
>>>>>> of positioning info but you will need the most precise of spectrum
>>>>>> info."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Slightly OT, are you familiar VSL's MIR?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's more for their samples than for other sources, but it's pretty damn
>>>>>> clever:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.vsl.co.at/en/65/71/1989/1678.vsl
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess cellos have a different radiation pattern though:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT3SBzmDxGk#t=177
>>>>>
>>>>> geoff
>>>>
>>>> Well, you got your Fukushima cello, and your Chernobyl cello, and your
>>>> Three Mile Island cello.
>>>>
>>> Like totally rad. <G>
>>
>> Let's not go critical over this...
>>

>Well, what kind of reaction did you expect?

I dunno, Jeff, but I definitely feel that some bonds could be broken over this.
(Then again, add a splash of tritrium and new bonds might be formed...)

Frank

--

Gray_Wolf

February 26th 14, 10:08 PM

On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 09:46:17 -0600, Frank Stearns
> wrote:

>Ron C > writes:
>
>>On 2/26/2014 1:15 AM, hank alrich wrote:
>>> geoff > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 26/02/2014 10:04 a.m., nickbatz wrote:
>>>>> Scott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "A violin, for instance, radiates sound in all directions but is very
>>>>> beamy at a few specific frequencies and you need to hit those beams
>>>>> accurately with your measurements. You might not need the most precise
>>>>> of positioning info but you will need the most precise of spectrum
>>>>> info."
>>>>>
>>>>> Slightly OT, are you familiar VSL's MIR?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's more for their samples than for other sources, but it's pretty damn
>>>>> clever:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.vsl.co.at/en/65/71/1989/1678.vsl
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I guess cellos have a different radiation pattern though:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT3SBzmDxGk#t=177
>>>>
>>>> geoff
>>>
>>> Well, you got your Fukushima cello, and your Chernobyl cello, and your
>>> Three Mile Island cello.
>>>
>>Like totally rad. <G>
>
>Let's not go critical over this...
>
>Frank

Is this the Beta release or RTM

Gray

geoff

February 27th 14, 05:35 AM

On 27/02/2014 7:49 a.m., Ron C wrote:

>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess cellos have a different radiation pattern though:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT3SBzmDxGk#t=177
>>>>>>
>>>>>> geoff
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, you got your Fukushima cello, and your Chernobyl cello, and your
>>>>> Three Mile Island cello.
>>>>>
>>>> Like totally rad. <G>
>>>
>>> Let's not go critical over this...
>>>
>>
>> Well, what kind of reaction did you expect?
>>
>> ---Jeff
>>
> But with no moderator there's could be a melt down!
>
> ==
> Later...
> Ron C
> --

But those cellos have no (visible) leads, and surely lead is a
moderator. Heavy water would dampen the sound too much.

The guy on the left looks like he's prone to having melt-downs. Similar
expression to my ex-workmate before he would throw his cellphone across
the workshop !

geoff

geoff

March 2nd 14, 01:59 AM

On 27/02/2014 3:29 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
> geoff > wrote:
>>
>> I guess cellos have a different radiation pattern though:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT3SBzmDxGk#t=177
>
> I don't know where those are miked from but that has to be the weirdest
> and most unnatural cello sound I have ever heard.
> --scott
>
Piezos I guess. But I hardly think a 'natural cello sound' would
really work in that example ;-)

geoff

Gary Eickmeier

March 2nd 14, 02:51 AM

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...

> The problem is that nobody can translate from Gary's descriptions into
> anything approaching actual perceived sound, because what he hears seems
> to be different than what everyone else hears. Therefore he hears
> problems
> where nobody else does, and nobody else has any common ground to discuss
> these with him. He makes up elaborate theories to explain these things,
> and everyone else is skeptical of them because they don't hear the things
> they presumably explain.
> --scott

OK I think I am going to have to step in here once again and correct this
nonsense. I have made a studied effort to communicate in "engineer speak"
using the same standard terms that I have seen in the literature and in
talking to fellow members of the AES, friends in audio, newsgroups, and so
on. I have, however, seen a few others who are supposed to be engineers
using terms that they have made up.Dave Moulton, for one, talks about the
speakers being the first phantom images of the direct sound, with the actual
first arrival sound being implied - or something. David Greisinger talks
about listening hall "presence," "harmonic phase coherence," and Siegfried
Linkwitz invented his own term for soundstaging, which he called "Auditory
Scene." I can infer what that is, a combination of Auditory event and
photographic Scene, but it is still non standard.

If I have invented some terms that you don't understand, please tell me
which ones and I will be glad to elaborate. Until then it is unkind to
generalize about it without giving examples.

Gary

William Sommerwerck

March 2nd 14, 03:40 AM

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

> The problem is that nobody can translate from Gary's descriptions into
> anything approaching actual perceived sound, because what he hears seems
> to be different than what everyone else hears. Therefore he hears problems
> where nobody else does, and nobody else has any common ground to discuss
> these with him. He makes up elaborate theories to explain these things,
>and everyone else is skeptical of them because they don't hear the things
> they presumably explain.

Actually, "the problem" is that Gary doesn't understand the philosophy of
science. Science is "about" asking good questions. It is not about assuming an
answer, then trying to force observation and practice into line with the
presumed truth.

Gary Eickmeier

March 2nd 14, 12:09 PM

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...

> Actually, "the problem" is that Gary doesn't understand the philosophy of
> science. Science is "about" asking good questions. It is not about
> assuming an answer, then trying to force observation and practice into
> line with the presumed truth.

Gary understands the philosophy of science just fine. The right questions
are:

1. How does a field-type system work in the realistic reproduction of
auditory perspective?

2. What is the best radiation pattern for loudspeakers in a field-type
system?

3. How should you position speakers to take advantage of the above?

4. How should the acoustics of a given sized playback space be treated?

Those are the biggies. In addition to those, if you have no idea what a
field-type system is, as defined by the pioneers at the Bell labs, William
Snow, Harry Olson, etc, then add "what is the difference between a
field-type system and a head-related system?"

Often the right questions arise as a result of an accidental discovery, such
as accidentally coming upon the formula for synthetic rubber, or discovering
a path toward a cure for leukemia, or the best filament for the light bulb.

Do you have any questions in the field of audio William? Or do you know it
all?

Gary Eickmeier

William Sommerwerck

March 2nd 14, 12:24 PM

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

>> Actually, "the problem" is that Gary doesn't understand the philosophy
>> of science. Science is "about" asking good questions. It is not about
>> assuming an answer, then trying to force observation and practice into line
>> with the presumed truth.

> Gary understands the philosophy of science just fine.
> The right questions are:

> 1. How does a field-type system work in the realistic reproduction of
> auditory perspective?

> 2. What is the best radiation pattern for loudspeakers in a field-type
> system?

> 3. How should you position speakers to take advantage of the above?

> 4. How should the acoustics of a given sized playback space be treated?

WRONG. Your questions are merely restatements of your pre-ordained
conclusions. I rest my case. QED.

> Do you have any questions in the field of audio, William?
> Or do you know it all?

Tons of questions, Gary. Many more than you have.

Scott Dorsey

March 2nd 14, 01:47 PM

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>Those are the biggies. In addition to those, if you have no idea what a
>field-type system is, as defined by the pioneers at the Bell labs, William
>Snow, Harry Olson, etc, then add "what is the difference between a
>field-type system and a head-related system?"

Pretty much all of the questions you are bringing up here were answered
long ago, or at the least answered in the eighties by Vanderkooy. Some of
them cannot necessarily be answered because they are dependant on source
material, but we have a very large body of source material that has been
recorded with the intention of playing it back in one particular way.

Recordings, for instance, are made for playback with speakers in an
equilateral triangle with the listener. Is this optimal? Perhaps, or
perhaps not, but nevertheless the source material has been made to be
played back that way.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Peter Larsen[_3_]

March 2nd 14, 01:53 PM

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

> 1. How does a field-type system work in the realistic reproduction of
> auditory perspective?

By converting electrical amplitude variations to acoustic amplitude
variations.

> 2. What is the best radiation pattern for loudspeakers in a field-type
> system?

The same over the entire audio band.

> 3. How should you position speakers to take advantage of the above?

In accordance with their properties.

> 4. How should the acoustics of a given sized playback space be
> treated?

Depends on the building. A playback room should however preferably be rigid
as recommended by Bowers and Wilkins.

> Those are the biggies. In addition to those, if you have no idea what
> a field-type system is, as defined by the pioneers at the Bell labs,
> William Snow, Harry Olson, etc, then add "what is the difference
> between a field-type system and a head-related system?"

Insertion of sound reproducer into the ear canal.

> Often the right questions arise as a result of an accidental
> discovery, such as accidentally coming upon the formula for synthetic
> rubber, or discovering a path toward a cure for leukemia, or the best
> filament for the light bulb.

The best filament is still carbon. Now if only they would be so kind as to
tune the Tesla-type systems to 55 Hz so mains hum gets in tune with default
intonation ....

> Do you have any questions in the field of audio William? Or do you
> know it all?

Why do think that going the ad hominem line is helpful? - you do however
appear to agree with William's less wise choice of explanatory strategy.

> Gary Eickmeier

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

William Sommerwerck

March 2nd 14, 03:52 PM

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k...
Gary Eickmeier wrote:

>> Do you have any questions in the field of audio William?
>> Or do you know it all?

> You ... appear to agree with William's less-wise choice
> of explanatory strategy.

What is the point of answering in detail, when the overall approach is
basically wrong? I prefer to view things of general principles, when possible.

Gary Eickmeier

March 2nd 14, 07:57 PM

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "Peter Larsen" wrote in message
> k...
> Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
>>> Do you have any questions in the field of audio William?
>>> Or do you know it all?
>
>> You ... appear to agree with William's less-wise choice
>> of explanatory strategy.
>
> What is the point of answering in detail, when the overall approach is
> basically wrong? I prefer to view things of general principles, when
> possible.

I'm not sure what Peter was getting at, but I was not ad homineming William.
Just trying to prod him off his generalizations and into some specifics. I
know that he wonders about a lot of the same things that I am talking about,
and I think he is farther along than Scott's stereo triangle.

William, yes, I do think I have some of the answers to my questions, but it
is difficult or impossible to share them with the group if those questions
haven't even occurred to them yet. So in that I would sort of agree with
you.

And no, I am not saying I have the last word yet, because I have not access
to a good LEDE studio to listen to, and I have not got my new prototype
speaker finished yet to be able to run some more experiments in this
environment. But I will do all of those things before I have to downsize and
sell the place to satisfy my family obligations.

I was listening this afternoon to some commercial and some of my own
recordings, and I like to listen to everything in surround, so I keep teh
DPL II engaged, maybe too loud. Anyway, when I turn it off I get a much
greater specificity of image (with the front speakers only) than when
listening in surround. But the surround is in many ways more realistic,
especially for larger orchestras. And of course my own surround recordings
in DPL.

The point is, you can manipulate these things on playback, and my reflecting
type speakers are not any problem in image specificity, which I think is
what this group digs more than the spatial qualities that I crave.

There has got to be something more scientific about all this than preference
or taste. I believe that a system can be engineered to provide whatever
qualities have been recorded, if we just know all of the factors, all of the
answers to Siegfried's and my questions.

Gary Eickmeier
A Wild and Crazy Kind of Guy to be asking all these crazy questions