[Peter Wieck]

On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 6:45:38 PM UTC-4, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
es, spread evenly across the region between the speakers.
=20
But will this high direct field from those two points in space sound the=
=20
same as the live sound that was recorded? Why or why not?

Gary:

AR did this for years, and years, and years, using their 3 and 3a speakers,=
and had some of the finest golden-ears of the industry agreeing that the t=
ransition from speaker to live was seamless and transparent. This is exactl=
y the wrong suggestion to make as there are any number of speakers out ther=
e capable of that task. ONE THING!! They never would have been placed per y=
our suggestion, that would have been an invitation to failure. I suggest yo=
u go back in time and look for an AR white paper on how to place speakers i=
n any given room - all other things being equal. The surprises you will dis=
cover:

a) Speakers are not to be placed on the short wall of a room.
b) Speakers are placed some distance from a wall, corner or from the floor =
based on a number of factors determined by the room, its size and the natur=
e of the furnishings. This *WILL* vary.=20
c) No sort of additional 'enhancement' or 'deadening' or absorption is nece=
ssary. In other words, pretty basic placement per some pretty basic princip=
les is all that is necessary for excellent performance and a clean sound-st=
age (which is definitely larger than a human head in height, width and dept=
h).=20

I think you are confused by the size of your listening venue and the additi=
onal complexities that adds to the process.=20

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA =20

[Gary Eickmeier]

Peter Wieck wrote:
On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 6:45:38 PM UTC-4, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
es, spread evenly across the region between the speakers.

But will this high direct field from those two points in space sound
the same as the live sound that was recorded? Why or why not?

Gary:

AR did this for years, and years, and years, using their 3 and 3a
speakers, and had some of the finest golden-ears of the industry
agreeing that the transition from speaker to live was seamless and
transparent. This is exactly the wrong suggestion to make as there
are any number of speakers out there capable of that task. ONE
THING!! They never would have been placed per your suggestion, that
would have been an invitation to failure. I suggest you go back in
time and look for an AR white paper on how to place speakers in any
given room - all other things being equal. The surprises you will
discover:

a) Speakers are not to be placed on the short wall of a room.
b) Speakers are placed some distance from a wall, corner or from the
floor based on a number of factors determined by the room, its size
and the nature of the furnishings. This *WILL* vary.
c) No sort of additional 'enhancement' or 'deadening' or absorption
is necessary. In other words, pretty basic placement per some pretty
basic principles is all that is necessary for excellent performance
and a clean sound-stage (which is definitely larger than a human head
in height, width and depth).

I think you are confused by the size of your listening venue and the
additional complexities that adds to the process.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Yes I know all about the AR experiments/ demos. It was just a string quartet
and it was recorded anechoically so that the playback room would act the
same on the speakers as it did on the live instruments. I have a copy of one
of their recordings. It was a great effort and I respect what they did, but
I can't help but wonder how it would fare today. I mean, people thought the
first Edison recorders sounded just like real.

The most real sounding playback I have heard has been in a larger auditorium
with the speakers sitting on an actual stage and playing away in stereo. One
occasion in particular was a stage magician act that used recorded sound
rather than a pit orchestra. He had two stacks of Bose 802s on each side.
When you walked in you could swear it was live music, and the reason is that
the actual room acoustics swamped whatever recorded acoustic there may have
been. So it sounded just exactly like real instruments playing in that
acoustic space.

Stereo is an acoustical process, not an "accuracy" paradigm where the object
is to get the two channels to your two ears intact, with no distortions or
room effects. To address this acoustic part of the deal, you need to study
live sound and think of it as the mainly 3 fields, the direct, early
reflected, and reverberant. If you don't physically reconstruct those fields
in the same proportions and spatial shapes in your playback, or as near as
physically possible, it will sound different from live, and different from
the sound on that recording. I am using a shaped radiation pattern that puts
out 6 dB more toward the rear than toward the front of the speakers. This
extra output energizes the early reflected field in a shape that is similar
to a typical live one, going out 45 degrees from the center line of the
speaker to bounce and fill the center and go out and back from the corner
bounce to arrive from spatially similar angles to the live situation. The
extra output causes an image shift toward the reflecting surfaces, causing
an auditory event of greater depth and spaciousness with the instruments
forming an aerial image in a plane behind the speakers, the speakers
disappearing completely as sources themselves. The speaker placement ensures
that the imaging is very even all across the front of the room, and
individual images seem like they are acoustic sources right in your room,
not coming from two megaphones, so to speak. There is no combing because the
front and rear outputs are not equal; there is no hole in the middle or
clustering of reflections or stretched soloists because of the speaker
placement, extremely important for speakers with a high reflected field.
All of these factors are interrelated and very important to the total
effect, such that if you got the radiation pattern right but screwed up the
speaker positioning, you would not observe the same effect. If you place
your speakers correctly, but they don't have anything going to the rear, the
soundstage will not "set up."

Very unlikely that experimenters or speaker companies out there would
stumble upon these highly contrarian principles all at once, so I go on
preaching to see if it might spark someone's imagination. The big picture is
that you do this image modeling for the frontal soundstage and you support
the reverberant field with some surround speakers. And yes, the room is a
good part of the deal, with acoustical properties for the reflected sound
and the larger the room the more like the size of the real thing.

Finally, as for the main objection to such a technique, we are NOT doubling
up the acoustic that was recorded because there is not a substantial
reverberant field in most domestic sized listening rooms. The single
reflection that I am using to construct the shape of the reflected field
does not make an acoustic signature, and you can absorb a lot of it as you
go back in the room with thick carpeting and normal stuffed furniture so
that you have no slap echo returning if you clap your hands. So - you have
not changed the temporal, just the spatial to make it resemble the real
thing more closely - physically - acoustically - within your room on
playback.

The speakers are then seen not as direct radiators but rather as Image Model
Projectors.

Gary Eickmeier

[Scott[_6_]]

On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 6:58:28 PM UTC-7, Peter Wieck wrote:
On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 6:45:38 PM UTC-4, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
es, spread evenly across the region between the speakers.
=20
But will this high direct field from those two points in space sound th=
e=20
same as the live sound that was recorded? Why or why not?
=20
Gary:
=20
AR did this for years, and years, and years, using their 3 and 3a speaker=
s, and had some of the finest golden-ears of the industry agreeing that the=
transition from speaker to live was seamless and transparent. This is exac=
tly the wrong suggestion to make as there are any number of speakers out th=
ere capable of that task. ONE THING!! They never would have been placed per=
your suggestion, that would have been an invitation to failure. I suggest =
you go back in time and look for an AR white paper on how to place speakers=
in any given room - all other things being equal. The surprises you will d=
iscover:
=20
a) Speakers are not to be placed on the short wall of a room.
b) Speakers are placed some distance from a wall, corner or from the floo=
r based on a number of factors determined by the room, its size and the nat=
ure of the furnishings. This *WILL* vary.=20
c) No sort of additional 'enhancement' or 'deadening' or absorption is ne=
cessary. In other words, pretty basic placement per some pretty basic princ=
iples is all that is necessary for excellent performance and a clean sound-=
stage (which is definitely larger than a human head in height, width and de=
pth).=20
=20
I think you are confused by the size of your listening venue and the addi=
tional complexities that adds to the process.=20
=20
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Pretty sure AR did this with a string quartet, always in an overly reverber=
ant room with a lot of people witnessing the comaprison and...musicians tha=
t did a great job of keeping up the visual cues of musicians playing when t=
hey would switch to playback. One deos not hear much if any seperation of i=
nstruments with a string quartet from any substantial distance particularly=
in an overly reverberant room. So it would not be the least bit surprising=
that a single speaker would image quite in a similar fashion, especially w=
ith the visual cues in place of actual musicians playing.

[Peter Wieck]

On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 7:10:33 AM UTC-4, Scott wrote:

Pretty sure AR did this with a string quartet, always in an overly reverb=
erant room with a lot of people witnessing the comaprison and...musicians t=
hat did a great job of keeping up the visual cues of musicians playing when=
they would switch to playback. One deos not hear much if any seperation of=
instruments with a string quartet from any substantial distance particular=
ly in an overly reverberant room. So it would not be the least bit surprisi=
ng that a single speaker would image quite in a similar fashion, especially=
with the visual cues in place of actual musicians playing.


Gary & Scott:

I think that at this point, we may be at cross-purposes. Stereo (however it=
is defined after the word alone is written) is a compromise of many facets=
, much as an elephant is a mouse to Government Specifications (both grey, l=
arge-eared, bare-tailed mammals) or a camel is a horse designed by a commit=
tee (Camels are mean beasts, spit further and harder than Llamas, are moody=
, and not very cooperative. Racing, riding and war camels are mostly female=
- males are bred for size, fighting (each other) and meat). Facets include=
recording technique, engineering, mixing, number and placement of micropho=
nes, analog or digital, the venue (an orchestra recorded in an empty hall w=
ith infinite repeats if a mistake is made will not be the same as a so-call=
ed "live" recording), the playback system(s), how many mechanical steps (ju=
st microphone and speaker, or microphone, cutting lathe, stamped vinyl, sty=
lus, cartridge and speaker), and much more. And a lot has been learned sinc=
e the early days. Keep in mind that early receivers and pre-amps and integ=
rated amplifiers from some of the more thoughtful manufacturers had center-=
channel outputs as early recordings often so 'enhanced' stereo effects as t=
o make the "dual mono" almost a reality. It was almost the case where the p=
roverbial left-hand had no knowledge or interaction with the right.

The average listener has neither the time, treasure or even the inclination=
to invest heroic amounts in their listening venue, and often enough, their=
entire budget for a playback system is less than the cost (new) of one pai=
r of my better speakers - and they are 'cheap' relative to what can be spen=
t. To expect that the average listener/hobbyist, even one quite serious abo=
ut it, to do so is not realistic.=20

Further, should the industry actually attempt to address the issues raised =
here head-on using a solution such as Gary describer, they would, effective=
ly, be putting sound reproduction out of the reach of all but the most well=
-heeled.=20

There are problems with stereo that may be discernible to a few under speci=
al conditions and if a direct comparison to a live performance is available=
.. Otherwise, if the sound heard is pleasing - that should be enough, as no =
amount of brute force or subtle nudging will make electronic playback the a=
udible equivalent to unreinforced live performance - especially if the play=
back venue is not the exact funcional equivalent of the performance venue.=
=20

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA=20

[Gary Eickmeier]

Peter Wieck wrote:

Gary & Scott:

I think that at this point, we may be at cross-purposes. Stereo
(however it is defined after the word alone is written) is a
compromise of many facets, much as an elephant is a mouse to
Government Specifications (both grey, large-eared, bare-tailed
mammals) or a camel is a horse designed by a committee (Camels are
mean beasts, spit further and harder than Llamas, are moody, and not
very cooperative. Racing, riding and war camels are mostly female -
males are bred for size, fighting (each other) and meat). Facets
include recording technique, engineering, mixing, number and
placement of microphones, analog or digital, the venue (an orchestra
recorded in an empty hall with infinite repeats if a mistake is made
will not be the same as a so-called "live" recording), the playback
system(s), how many mechanical steps (just microphone and speaker, or
microphone, cutting lathe, stamped vinyl, stylus, cartridge and
speaker), and much more. And a lot has been learned since the early
days. Keep in mind that early receivers and pre-amps and integrated
amplifiers from some of the more thoughtful manufacturers had
center-channel outputs as early recordings often so 'enhanced' stereo
effects as to make the "dual mono" almost a reality. It was almost
the case where the proverbial left-hand had no knowledge or
interaction with the right.

The average listener has neither the time, treasure or even the
inclination to invest heroic amounts in their listening venue, and
often enough, their entire budget for a playback system is less than
the cost (new) of one pair of my better speakers - and they are
'cheap' relative to what can be spent. To expect that the average
listener/hobbyist, even one quite serious about it, to do so is not
realistic.

Further, should the industry actually attempt to address the issues
raised here head-on using a solution such as Gary describer, they
would, effectively, be putting sound reproduction out of the reach of
all but the most well-heeled.

There are problems with stereo that may be discernible to a few under
special conditions and if a direct comparison to a live performance
is available. Otherwise, if the sound heard is pleasing - that should
be enough, as no amount of brute force or subtle nudging will make
electronic playback the audible equivalent to unreinforced live
performance - especially if the playback venue is not the exact
funcional equivalent of the performance venue.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Thanks again Peter and Scott -

.....and what you say Peter is partially true, but not entirely. What IS a
shame is the extent to which the bull****ters and maketeers have been able
to take over the industry and sell those well-heeled audiophiles crap that
is either not right or a lie or costs more than it is worth or based on
wrong technology. Like religious evangelicals these audiophiles will believe
ANYTHING and pay any amount to get good sound.

My speakers cost me about $1500 each to have built, and that doesn't really
repay him for his experience and insights into helping me achieve my goals
with them. They are very sophisticated designs even outside the purpose for
which they were built, the radiation pattern. In addition to the pattern
they are built as bi-amped or not, you choose, so that experimenters could
amplify each half independently to vary the gains and see what happens to
the sound imaging. That plus there are two pots on top of the speaker to
vary the ratio between the two front driver faces, to adjust the distance/
intensity trading to keep the imaging centered as you walk across the room.
That works very well too.Very similar to Mark Davis's Soundfield One.

But what I am about is to explain the problem with traditional stereo theory
and try to correct it. Image Model Theory is just a more visual way of
looking at the big picture of radiation pattern, speaker positioning, and
room acoustics. You draw the first reflections as additional sources on the
other side of the wall and study the patterns of reflected sound that this
technique shows. Then you have to understand stereo as an acoustical
process, not a head-related process with two ears, two speakers fooling you
into hearing stereo. At this stage in the history of reproduced sound, we
should not be making most speakers with all of the drivers on the front and
whatever radiation pattern they put out being accidental rather than
designed in. Allison, Toole, Davis, and a few others realize that the radpat
should be wide and smooth and the freq response equi-omni in order to get
the first reflections to have the same response as the actual speakers. But
none of them have studied how the room positioning affects the total image,
or that there needs to be more output to the rear, or what kind of
reflectivity you need to set up the total frontal soundstage. In other
words, with correct theory on how to put the sound into the room all of that
expensive equipment should not be necessary and we could all be enjoying our
precious music so much more.

I will try and come up with a paper for the next NY convention. Not sure I
could transport the sound of my room to a hotel room by bringing the
speakers up there, but it would be great if I could do that and it really
worked well. Anyway, if you get up there look for a paper called "Image
Model Theory 30 Years On."

Gary

[Scott[_6_]]

On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 4:26:19 AM UTC-7, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Peter Wieck wrote:
=20
Gary & Scott:

I think that at this point, we may be at cross-purposes. Stereo
(however it is defined after the word alone is written) is a
compromise of many facets, much as an elephant is a mouse to
Government Specifications (both grey, large-eared, bare-tailed
mammals) or a camel is a horse designed by a committee (Camels are
mean beasts, spit further and harder than Llamas, are moody, and not
very cooperative. Racing, riding and war camels are mostly female -
males are bred for size, fighting (each other) and meat). Facets
include recording technique, engineering, mixing, number and
placement of microphones, analog or digital, the venue (an orchestra
recorded in an empty hall with infinite repeats if a mistake is made
will not be the same as a so-called "live" recording), the playback
system(s), how many mechanical steps (just microphone and speaker, or
microphone, cutting lathe, stamped vinyl, stylus, cartridge and
speaker), and much more. And a lot has been learned since the early
days. Keep in mind that early receivers and pre-amps and integrated
amplifiers from some of the more thoughtful manufacturers had
center-channel outputs as early recordings often so 'enhanced' stereo
effects as to make the "dual mono" almost a reality. It was almost
the case where the proverbial left-hand had no knowledge or
interaction with the right.

The average listener has neither the time, treasure or even the
inclination to invest heroic amounts in their listening venue, and
often enough, their entire budget for a playback system is less than
the cost (new) of one pair of my better speakers - and they are
'cheap' relative to what can be spent. To expect that the average
listener/hobbyist, even one quite serious about it, to do so is not
realistic.

Further, should the industry actually attempt to address the issues
raised here head-on using a solution such as Gary describer, they
would, effectively, be putting sound reproduction out of the reach of
all but the most well-heeled.

There are problems with stereo that may be discernible to a few under
special conditions and if a direct comparison to a live performance
is available. Otherwise, if the sound heard is pleasing - that should
be enough, as no amount of brute force or subtle nudging will make
electronic playback the audible equivalent to unreinforced live
performance - especially if the playback venue is not the exact
funcional equivalent of the performance venue.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
=20
Thanks again Peter and Scott -
=20
....and what you say Peter is partially true, but not entirely. What IS a=
=20
shame is the extent to which the bull****ters and maketeers have been abl=
e=20
to take over the industry and sell those well-heeled audiophiles crap tha=
t=20
is either not right or a lie or costs more than it is worth or based on=
=20
wrong technology. Like religious evangelicals these audiophiles will beli=
eve=20
ANYTHING and pay any amount to get good sound.
=20
My speakers cost me about $1500 each to have built, and that doesn't real=
ly=20
repay him for his experience and insights into helping me achieve my goal=
s=20
with them. They are very sophisticated designs even outside the purpose f=
or=20
which they were built, the radiation pattern. In addition to the pattern=
=20
they are built as bi-amped or not, you choose, so that experimenters coul=
d=20
amplify each half independently to vary the gains and see what happens t=
o=20
the sound imaging. That plus there are two pots on top of the speaker to=
=20
vary the ratio between the two front driver faces, to adjust the distance=
/=20
intensity trading to keep the imaging centered as you walk across the roo=
m.=20
That works very well too.Very similar to Mark Davis's Soundfield One.
=20
But what I am about is to explain the problem with traditional stereo the=
ory=20
and try to correct it. Image Model Theory is just a more visual way of=20
looking at the big picture of radiation pattern, speaker positioning, and=
=20
room acoustics. You draw the first reflections as additional sources on t=
he=20
other side of the wall and study the patterns of reflected sound that thi=
s=20
technique shows. Then you have to understand stereo as an acoustical=20
process, not a head-related process with two ears, two speakers fooling y=
ou=20
into hearing stereo. At this stage in the history of reproduced sound, we=
=20
should not be making most speakers with all of the drivers on the front a=
nd=20
whatever radiation pattern they put out being accidental rather than=20
designed in. Allison, Toole, Davis, and a few others realize that the rad=
pat=20
should be wide and smooth and the freq response equi-omni in order to get=
=20
the first reflections to have the same response as the actual speakers. B=
ut=20
none of them have studied how the room positioning affects the total imag=
e,=20
or that there needs to be more output to the rear, or what kind of=20
reflectivity you need to set up the total frontal soundstage. In other=20
words, with correct theory on how to put the sound into the room all of t=
hat=20
expensive equipment should not be necessary and we could all be enjoying =
our=20
precious music so much more.
=20
I will try and come up with a paper for the next NY convention. Not sure =
I=20
could transport the sound of my room to a hotel room by bringing the=20
speakers up there, but it would be great if I could do that and it really=
=20
worked well. Anyway, if you get up there look for a paper called "Image=
=20
Model Theory 30 Years On."
=20
Gary

The basic problem with trying to change how stereo works is that you have t=
wo components to stereo, playback and recordings. We can do what we want an=
d try different things with playback. But we can't change the 60+ year host=
ory of stereo recordings and how they were done. And we can't change the fa=
ct that they were done quite differently over the years. There are better w=
ays to create the illusion of realism than conventional stereo recording an=
d playback. The problem is that you exclude all of the great music=20
recorded in stereo over it's 60+ year history. And that ultimately defeats =
the purpose for most of us. So we are stuck with a technology that is all o=
ver the map when it comes to source material and all over the map when it c=
omes to finding our most prefered way to play that source material back. Yo=
u have found your favorite solution and I have found mine and they are quit=
e different. But there is no objective right or wrong here. It is about pre=
ferences and what one finds the most pleasing.

[Gary Eickmeier]

Peter Wieck wrote:

Gary & Scott:

I think that at this point, we may be at cross-purposes. Stereo
(however it is defined after the word alone is written) is a
compromise of many facets, much as an elephant is a mouse to
Government Specifications (both grey, large-eared, bare-tailed
mammals) or a camel is a horse designed by a committee (Camels are
mean beasts, spit further and harder than Llamas, are moody, and not
very cooperative. Racing, riding and war camels are mostly female -
males are bred for size, fighting (each other) and meat). Facets
include recording technique, engineering, mixing, number and
placement of microphones, analog or digital, the venue (an orchestra
recorded in an empty hall with infinite repeats if a mistake is made
will not be the same as a so-called "live" recording), the playback
system(s), how many mechanical steps (just microphone and speaker, or
microphone, cutting lathe, stamped vinyl, stylus, cartridge and
speaker), and much more. And a lot has been learned since the early
days. Keep in mind that early receivers and pre-amps and integrated
amplifiers from some of the more thoughtful manufacturers had
center-channel outputs as early recordings often so 'enhanced' stereo
effects as to make the "dual mono" almost a reality. It was almost
the case where the proverbial left-hand had no knowledge or
interaction with the right.

The average listener has neither the time, treasure or even the
inclination to invest heroic amounts in their listening venue, and
often enough, their entire budget for a playback system is less than
the cost (new) of one pair of my better speakers - and they are
'cheap' relative to what can be spent. To expect that the average
listener/hobbyist, even one quite serious about it, to do so is not
realistic.

Further, should the industry actually attempt to address the issues
raised here head-on using a solution such as Gary describer, they
would, effectively, be putting sound reproduction out of the reach of
all but the most well-heeled.

There are problems with stereo that may be discernible to a few under
special conditions and if a direct comparison to a live performance
is available. Otherwise, if the sound heard is pleasing - that should
be enough, as no amount of brute force or subtle nudging will make
electronic playback the audible equivalent to unreinforced live
performance - especially if the playback venue is not the exact
funcional equivalent of the performance venue.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Thanks again Peter and Scott -

.....and what you say Peter is partially true, but not entirely. What IS a
shame is the extent to which the bull****ters and maketeers have been able
to take over the industry and sell those well-heeled audiophiles crap that
is either not right or a l ie or costs more than it is worth or based on
wrong technology. Like religious evangelicals these audiophiles will believe
ANYTHING and pay any amount to get good sound.

My speakers cost me about $1500 each to have built, and that doesn't really
repay him for his experience and insights into helping me achieve my goals
with them. They are very sophisticated designs even outside the purpose for
which they were built, the radiation pattern. In addition to the pattern
they are built as bi-amped or not, you choose, so that experimenters could
amplify each half independently to vary the gains and see what happens to
the sound imaging. That plus there are two pots on top of the speaker to
vary the ratio between the two front driver faces, to adjust the distance/
intensity trading to keep the imaging centered as you walk across the room.
That works very well too.Very similar to Mark Davis's Soundfield One.

But what I am about is to explain the problem with traditional stereo theory
and try to correct it. Image Model Theory is just a more visual way of
looking at the big picture of radiation pattern, speaker positioning, and
room acoustics. You draw the first reflections as additional sources on the
other side of the wall and study the patterns of reflected sound that this
technique shows. Then you have to understand stereo as an acoustical
process, not a head-related process with two ears, two speakers fooling you
into hearing stereo. At this stage in the history of reproduced sound, we
should not be making most speakers with all of the drivers on the front and
whatever radiation pattern they put out being accidental rather than
designed in. Allison, Toole, Davis, and a few others realize that the radpat
should be wide and smooth and the freq response equi-omni in order to get
the first reflections to have the same response as the actual speakers. But
none of them have studied how the room positioning affects the total image,
or that there needs to be more output to the rear, or what kind of
reflectivity you need to set up the total frontal soundstage. In other
words, with correct theory on how to put the sound into the room all of that
expensive equipment should not be necessary and we could all be enjoying our
precious music so much more.

I will try and come up with a paper for the next NY convention. Not sure I
could transport the sound of my room to a hotel room by bringing the
speakers up there, but it would be great if I could do that and it really
worked well. Anyway, if you get up there look for a paper called "Image
Model Theory 30 Years On."

Gary