[[email protected]]

Peter Wieck wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 1:40:46 PM UTC-4, wrote:

Why not? The first article in particular is exactly to the point.

a) It relies on symmetry.

So does stereo.

b) It is focused on sound reinforcement for TV, not 2-channel audio.

It's about speakers and rooms. The fact that it also talks about more
channels is not really relevant. The physics is essentially the same.

Meaning, it is fine as far as it goes, but it does not go nearly far
enough towards the OP's issue.

So, please go ahead. The problem described is exactly what everyone
would expect from putting full-range speakers in a corner.

Andrew.

[Peter Wieck[_2_]]

On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 10:49:44 AM UTC-4, =
wrote:

a) It relies on symmetry.=20
=20
So does stereo.

I think this is where we part ways. "Stereo" does not depend on symmetry at=
all. Were it to, a mono signal would suffice, and even be necessary. Ster=
eo is about creating a sound stage that is wider than a single point using =
information developed from multiple sources when the recording is made.=20

The exercise in speaker placement from AR that I summarized is focused on m=
aking that sound stage in any given room using some very basic processes. I=
t is NOT focused on balancing sound around a single point - such as a telev=
ision - where symmetry is a necessary requirement. Needs drive results, not=
results drive needs.=20

As to physics - system capacities have a very real effect on results as wel=
l. Good sound is a matter of moving sufficient air, sufficiently accurately=
to fool the listener into believing it is (at least) the first cousin of o=
riginal sound. That is the physics part. But if the system does not have th=
e power, for lack of a better word, to move that air, the entire exercise i=
s futile physics notwithstanding.=20

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[[email protected]]

Peter Wieck wrote:
On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 10:49:44 AM UTC-4, wrote:

a) It relies on symmetry.

So does stereo.

I think this is where we part ways. "Stereo" does not depend on
symmetry at all. Were it to, a mono signal would suffice,

Of course it would not.

and even be necessary. Stereo is about creating a sound stage that
is wider than a single point using information developed from
multiple sources when the recording is made.

Sure, but to do that requires two speakers, as similar as possible, in
a symmetrical arrangement.

The exercise in speaker placement from AR that I summarized is
focused on making that sound stage in any given room using some very
basic processes. It is NOT focused on balancing sound around a
single point - such as a television - where symmetry is a necessary
requirement. Needs drive results, not results drive needs.

As to physics - system capacities have a very real effect on results
as well.

Of course. Getting the basic physics right is necessary but not
sufficient. First, fix the room and the speaker placement. Most of the
points that Floyd Toole makes about rooms and speakers are true
regardless of the presence of a television.

Good sound is a matter of moving sufficient air, sufficiently
accurately to fool the listener into believing it is (at least) the
first cousin of original sound. That is the physics part. But if the
system does not have the power, for lack of a better word, to move
that air, the entire exercise is futile physics notwithstanding.

Obviously so, yes, and this is not in contention. So why mention it?
What is the point?

Andrew.