| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Is flat frequency response desirable?
On Apr 12, 2:48*pm, Sonnova wrote:
Why propagate mythology? Because for some in the high-end audio biz, it's their only added value. |
|
#42
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is flat frequency response desirable?
On Apr 12, 2:48*pm, Sonnova wrote:
Yet I have seen speakers where the manufacturer's instructions tell the new owner that the speaker won't sound its best until AFTER a 100 hrs or so of break-in. Why propagate mythology? To discourage returns. bob |
|
#43
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is flat frequency response desirable?
On Apr 12, 4:06*pm, "Gary Eickmeier" wrote:
wrote in ... It comes from placing dipoles or omnies close to the back wall. OK now this is getting really frustrating. Where did "placing dipoles or omnis close to the back wall" come from? Gary Eickmeier Sorry about your frustration. It came from the 9th post on this thread. "This is exactly opposite of the truth. Speakers that are flat to a measuring microphone in an anechoic chamber will have a natural, desirable fall- off of the high frequencies in a good sized room, as will live instruments. This is provided they have a very wide, even radiation pattern, preferably dipole or omni, and are placed a few feet from all walls." I stand corrected. You weren't limiting the close placement to the back wall. You seem to want to splash the sound off the side walls as well. As an owner of curved dipoles I instinctively ignored the side wall part of your comment. |
|
#44
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is flat frequency response desirable?
"Sonnova" wrote in message
I have seen speakers where the manufacturer's instructions tell the new owner that the speaker won't sound its best until AFTER a 100 hrs or so of break-in. Why propagate mythology? Same reason that some speaker manufacturers put bi-wiring terminals on their speakers. It's what the client associate with a higher quality product. |
|
#45
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is flat frequency response desirable?
On Apr 12, 10:32*pm, wrote:
On Apr 12, 2:48*pm, Sonnova wrote: Yet I have seen speakers where the manufacturer's instructions tell the new owner that the speaker won't sound its best until AFTER a 100 hrs or so of break-in. Why propagate mythology? To discourage returns. Not in my experience. Allow a small trade-in on a return, sell the item to another customer. Then sell the original customer a replacement item. Isn't that what keeps them in business? bob |
|
#46
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is flat frequency response desirable?
On Apr 12, 4:07*pm, John Stone wrote:
On 4/11/09 1:06 PM, in article , " wrote: On Apr 11, 3:20*am, "Gary Eickmeier" wrote: wrote in message "Splashed all over the walls"? Where did that come from? Gary Eickmeier- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - It comes from placing dipoles or omnies close to the back wall. Ok, so misplacing dipoles and omni's causes problems. That's a given. But poorly placed monopole speakers will also cause problems, and they too "splash sound all over the walls", just in a different manner. So is the solution to not splash sound all over the walls, or for the walls to completely absorb that sound? You wouldn't think so if you've ever heard a pair of speakers played in an anechoic chamber. I have not heard a pair of speakers in an anechoic chamber so I can't comment on that experience first hand. OTOH I have heard many people talk about how bad the sound is in an anechoic chamber without actually listening to speakers in an anechoic chamber. I have also heard from one source that near field listening in an anechoic chamber was the best stereo sound he has ever heard. |
|
#47
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is flat frequency response desirable?
wrote in message
On Apr 12, 10:32 pm, wrote: On Apr 12, 2:48 pm, Sonnova wrote: Yet I have seen speakers where the manufacturer's instructions tell the new owner that the speaker won't sound its best until AFTER a 100 hrs or so of break-in. Why propagate mythology? To discourage returns. Not in my experience. Allow a small trade-in on a return, sell the item to another customer. I'm a dealer of sorts, and that scares the %$#! out of me. I want the things I see to stay sold for at least a year. Then sell the original customer a replacement item. Isn't that what keeps them in business? One key to churning gullible clients is to maximize the spread between selling and buying prices. That requires that the customer feel guilty about his time with the equipment in question. |
|
#48
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is flat frequency response desirable?
wrote in message
... On Apr 12, 4:06 pm, "Gary Eickmeier" wrote: and are placed a few feet from all walls." I stand corrected. You weren't limiting the close placement to the back wall. You seem to want to splash the sound off the side walls as well. As an owner of curved dipoles I instinctively ignored the side wall part of your comment. You also ignored the "a few feet from" part. Does that translate to "close to" in your mind? The "splashing" is your term as well, and I have never referred to the front wall of a listening room as "the back wall." I'm curious about your attitude - as an owner of dipoles, why are you so against "splashing" the sound off the walls? Why wouldn't you own corner horns? And how do you position your speakers? Close to the walls or a few feet from all walls? Gary Eickmeier |
|
#49
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is flat frequency response desirable?
On Apr 11, 5:17*pm, wrote:
On Apr 11, 2:13*pm, wrote: Well, if a flat frequency response is not desirable, then the program material must need some help. * Hardly the only possibility. Basically, it's because the listener has an expectation of what it SHOULD sound like, and the presentation needs to be adjusted to meet that expectation. That includes all sorts of possibilities, including program material needing help, the listeners expectations at variance with some reality and so forth. This is my own opinion, offered from my own perspective. This is offered from my audio purist point of view. This is a high end audio newsgroup. Are we not interested in achieveing as accurate audio reproduction as possible? Please note however, I don't have any issue with any listener twiddling tone controls in any way to satisfy whatever reason or quibble they have. Sometimes, it may even be to correct the tonal balance to more accurately represent the source material, if the source material needs help. If all aspects of the recording are respected to their true source dimensions, there would be no need to alter frequency response. Simple not true: you assume that a neutral, uncolored presentation is the ONLY correct one for all listeners. Exactly where, or when did I decree that a neutral, uncolored presentation is the ONLY correct one for ALL listeners? I expressed a personal opinion regarding MY preference in reproduction. I did not, and would not evangelise my preferences for accuracy as a panacea for all listeners. Most listeners could care a whit about accuracy to the source material. They mostly want to hear their audio the way they want it without much regard to fidelity. I do not fault anyone for their own preferences either. On the other hand, if we are discussing the accuracy of audio reproduction, then frequency response that mimics the source material is likely preferable. Frequency response of a speaker system within a given listening room is important to accuracy, Again, your premise assumes that a clear definition of accuracy is agreed upon and the result is accepted by all. It is not. A clear definition of accuracy does not need to be agreed upon. It either is, or is not. Consensus may be reassuring, but it is not necessary. Belief that a reproduced audio portrayal has great fidelity to the original audio recorded is a personal discovery. Some listeners may believe accurate what others may not. However, not many listeners really compare live audio experiences with reproduced. Some listen carefully, some don't. This doesn't matter as long as individually, we all are enjoying and/or satisfied with the results. Again, my statement is relevant to my own opinion, and that alone. I am not satisfied with skewed frequency response in audio reproduction. But as my original post said, frequency response is important, but not always the most important factor. Playback of good quality signal at actual performance SPL should not require any major equalization corrections to sound accurate. Again, you assume that a. everyone agrees upon the same definition of "accuracy" and b. everyone agrees that accuracy is THE goal. This is ignoring the previous paragraph in my post that hinted upon the Fletcher-Munson tonal balance contours that compensate for audio sounding generally light in bass when played at less than performance sound levels. This may be a good point of discussion regarding the OP's predispostition for bass heavy reproduction. You missed the point there, and again, I do not wish to beat the accuracy quest to death at this point. That is my opinion and an opinion shared by many (but not all) audiophile types. This depends upon the room and speakers being matched and complementary to enable a good stereo image and void of objectionable resonance or standing waves. In a word, no. Among other things, you're assuming that response magnitude is he only variable. It most assuredly is not. The fact is that a standing wave in a room can well be a non-mininum phase error, and attempting to correct it with a non-minimum phase speaker response or a different non-minimum phase response will not work. Simply put: a complimentary speaker response to a room error is complimentary ONLY in one domain, (response magnitude vs frequency) and is NOT other, equally critical domans (e.g. phase of time vs frequency). Where did all that come from? How do you know what I am assuming? Why do you make assumptions and extrapolate meanings to suit your train of thought? It seems you are attempting to steer the content of my post on a tangent, far away from it's intended course. It is also inconsiderate to present your rationalizations in a sanctimonious and marginalising manner. Sheesh! You know, perhaps I was talking about thoughtful listening room renovation, room treatment and optimal speaker positioning. At least that is what I thought I was talking about. I regret not being absolutely concise enough to contain your imagination. Where is this going? *I've had this deja vu before with this same debate on the horizon. *This has been beat to death without an objective winner. Often time, by being clubbed to death by quite non-objective or just plain "technical" wrong arguments. Let's maybe say that we agree to disagree regarding accuracy. In most cases I strive for the reproduction to be as close in fidelity to the source material as possible. If we say that deviating from that ideal purposely because some listeners "like it that way", then that may be correct for their sensibilities or expectations, but purposely incorrect to the source, it is therefore not really attempting to be accurate. Perhaps pleasing to some though. However, as long as all the listeners are content with their choices and preferences at the end of the day then I say THAT is the best result, regardless of accuracy. Aaaarrrgh, Don |
|
#50
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is flat frequency response desirable?
On Apr 13, 2:37*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message On Apr 12, 10:32 pm, wrote: On Apr 12, 2:48 pm, Sonnova wrote: Yet I have seen speakers where the manufacturer's instructions tell the new owner that the speaker won't sound its best until AFTER a 100 hrs or so of break-in. Why propagate mythology? To discourage returns. Not in my experience. Allow a small trade-in on a return, sell the item to another customer. I'm a dealer of sorts, and that scares the %$#! out of me. *I want the things I see to stay sold for at least a year. Money does make the world go round, or at least that's what I've heard. My high end dealer (and I'm not naming names) did that all the time. Some of the times I was a buyer, and others trading it in for the "new and improved" version, which is a never ceasing event. Then sell the original customer a replacement item. Isn't that what keeps them in business? One key to churning gullible clients is to maximize the spread between selling and buying prices. That requires that the customer feel guilty about his time with the equipment in question. Why is that? no true if a customer very badly wants to get rid of something after an unsuccessful audition in his home. I'm of the opinion that a customer (who supposedly is always right) only feels guilty about money spent unwisely, sometimes both true and of his own doing, others because of what he's lead to believe by a high end "rag", and yet others at the dealer's recommendation. |
|
#51
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is flat frequency response desirable?
On Apr 14, 3:06*am, "Gary Eickmeier" wrote:
wrote in message ... On Apr 12, 4:06 pm, "Gary Eickmeier" wrote: and are placed a few feet from all walls." I stand corrected. You weren't limiting the close placement to the back wall. You seem to want to splash the sound off the side walls as well. As an owner of curved dipoles I instinctively ignored the side wall part of your comment. You also ignored the "a few feet from" part. Quite the opposite. Does that translate to "close to" in your mind? Yes. The "splashing" is your term as well, and I have never referred to the front wall of a listening room as "the back wall." We are talking about dipoles and we are talking about the wall *behind* them. I'm sure we understood each other about which wall was being discussed. I'm curious about your attitude I do not mean to project any sort of attitude. Sorry if I come across that way. - as an owner of dipoles, why are you so against "splashing" the sound off the walls? Because it severely damages the sound quality. Why wouldn't you own corner horns? I haven't heard any that compete with my Sound Labs for creating a realistic illusion of live music. And how do you position your speakers? Close to the walls or a few feet from all walls? Niether. My speakers are about seven feet from the back (front) wall. They are rather close to the side walls but the side wall reflections are delt with by sound absorbtion from behind the speakers and a physical blocking of the early reflection points infront of the speakers and by the shape of the speakers themselves. My back (front) wall is heavily covered in absorbtion materials. My listening position is about 7 1/2 feet from the front of the speakers (near field) the rest of the room is heavily treated with absorbtion and diffusion. |
|
#52
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is flat frequency response desirable?
wrote in message
One key to churning gullible clients is to maximize the spread between selling and buying prices. That requires that the customer feel guilty about his time with the equipment in question. Why is that? Basic economics: Buy low, sell high. not true if a customer very badly wants to get rid of something after an unsuccessful audition in his home. Why wasn't the audition part of a pre-arranged trial? Most of the dealers around here offer free 30 day trials, etc. I'm of the opinion that a customer (who supposedly is always right) only feels guilty about money spent unwisely, sometimes both true and of his own doing, others because of what he's lead to believe by a high end "rag", and yet others at the dealer's recommendation. Seems like a truism. Dealer's and manufacturer's invented the "break in" myth to help them manage that situation. |
|
#53
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is flat frequency response desirable?
On Apr 15, 10:25*am, wrote:
On Apr 14, 3:06*am, "Gary Eickmeier" wrote: And how do you position your speakers? Close to the walls or a few feet from all walls? Niether. My speakers are about seven feet from the back (front) wall. They are rather close to the side walls but the side wall reflections are delt with by sound absorbtion from behind the speakers and a physical blocking of the early reflection points infront of the speakers and by the shape of the speakers themselves. Just so everyone is on the same page, it's important to note that the if these speakers are even approximations of dipole radiators, the radiation normal to the principle axis is seriously reduced over a wide band of frequencies, making the side reflections much less of a problem with dipoles. |
|
#54
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is flat frequency response desirable?
On 4/15/09 9:25 AM, in article ,
" wrote: On Apr 14, 3:06*am, "Gary Eickmeier" wrote: - as an owner of dipoles, why are you so against "splashing" the sound off the walls? Because it severely damages the sound quality. Here is an article from someone who knows a thing or two about dipole loudspeakers, that takes the completely opposite view. http://linkwitzlab.com/stereo%20reproduction.htm or the AES paper, if you want to go into further detail http://linkwitzlab.com/AES'07/AES123-final2.pdf And how do you position your speakers? Close to the walls or a few feet from all walls? Niether. My speakers are about seven feet from the back (front) wall. They are rather close to the side walls but the side wall reflections are delt with by sound absorbtion from behind the speakers and a physical blocking of the early reflection points infront of the speakers and by the shape of the speakers themselves. My back (front) wall is heavily covered in absorbtion materials. My listening position is about 7 1/2 feet from the front of the speakers (near field) the rest of the room is heavily treated with absorbtion and diffusion. You definitely seem to be in the "reflections are evil" camp. Getting back to that anechoic chamber discussion, is your goal to eliminate as much reflected energy as possible? Or do you consider some room contribution to be acceptable, even desirable? Your selection of dipole speakers is also interesting given your statement that sound reflected off the walls is damaging to the quality. |
|
#55
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is flat frequency response desirable?
Thank you for your very complete response to my probing questions. I will
try to do it justice. wrote in message ... On Apr 14, 3:06 am, "Gary Eickmeier" wrote: The "splashing" is your term as well, and I have never referred to the front wall of a listening room as "the back wall." We are talking about dipoles and we are talking about the wall *behind* them. I'm sure we understood each other about which wall was being discussed. Yes, but sometimes we need to also talk about the actual back wall, and it gets confusing if you are not consistent. I'm curious about your attitude I do not mean to project any sort of attitude. Sorry if I come across that way. Attitude is not a good or bad thing, I was just saying that your "tilt" is toward wanting to minimize all reflections, but then you go and get dipolar speakers. And how do you position your speakers? Close to the walls or a few feet from all walls? Niether. My speakers are about seven feet from the back (front) wall. They are rather close to the side walls but the side wall reflections are delt with by sound absorbtion from behind the speakers and a physical blocking of the early reflection points infront of the speakers and by the shape of the speakers themselves. My back (front) wall is heavily covered in absorbtion materials. My listening position is about 7 1/2 feet from the front of the speakers (near field) the rest of the room is heavily treated with absorbtion and diffusion. Again, the main advantage of dipoles is that the reflected sound from behind them can contribute a depth and spaciousness that is not available with direct firing speakers - if you will let them. To cut a long story off at the knees, I do just the opposite of what your goal seems to be. My placement is 1/4 of the room width out from the front wall and the same distance from the side walls, so that if you draw an "image model" of the actual speakers and all of their reflections you see 8 evenly spaced sound sources locked in an array in front of you. A summing localization makes the apparent left and right sound sources completely outside of the speaker boxes, somewhere behind and a little wider than the actual speakers. Because the front and side walls are being used in constructing the stereo illusion, they literally disappear as "problem" reflections and behave as though they were transparent and you are listening to eight actual speakers arrayed in depth and width in front of you. Close-miked, dry recordings sound like they are right in your room with you, and wetter, more spacious recordings sound very spacious, modeling the playback after the actual reflection patterns in the hall. That's the Cliff Notes version of the results I am getting with the completely different approach from yours. I think you are depriving yourself of some enjoyable aspects of your Martin Logans by killing all reflections like that. Gary Eickmeier |
|
#56
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is flat frequency response desirable?
On Apr 15, 10:01*pm, "Gary Eickmeier"
wrote: Thank you for your very complete response to my probing questions. I will try to do it justice. wrote in ... On Apr 14, 3:06 am, "Gary Eickmeier" wrote: The "splashing" is your term as well, and I have never referred to the front wall of a listening room as "the back wall." We are talking about dipoles and we are talking about the wall *behind* them. I'm sure we understood each other about which wall was being discussed. Yes, but sometimes we need to also talk about the actual back wall, and it gets confusing if you are not consistent. I'll try to keep my front and back wall straight from here on out. I'm curious about your attitude I do not mean to project any sort of attitude. Sorry if I come across that way. Attitude is not a good or bad thing, I was just saying that your "tilt" is toward wanting to minimize all reflections, but then you go and get dipolar speakers. More to the point. Electrostatic speakers. The dipole thing is just an unfortunate by-product. And how do you position your speakers? Close to the walls or a few feet from all walls? Niether. My speakers are about seven feet from the back (front) wall. They are rather close to the side walls but the side wall reflections are delt with by sound absorbtion from behind the speakers and a physical blocking of the early reflection points infront of the speakers and by the shape of the speakers themselves. My back (front) wall is heavily covered in absorbtion materials. My listening position is about 7 1/2 feet from the front of the speakers (near field) the rest of the room is heavily treated with absorbtion and diffusion. Again, the main advantage of dipoles is that the reflected sound from behind them can contribute a depth and spaciousness that is not available with direct firing speakers - if you will let them. IME I get a much greater illusion of depth, width and height with less room interaction. Not to mention no smearing. With the right program material the illusion is quite uncanny. To cut a long story off at the knees, I do just the opposite of what your goal seems to be. My placement is 1/4 of the room width out from the front wall and the same distance from the side walls, so that if you draw an "image model" of the actual speakers and all of their reflections you see 8 evenly spaced sound sources locked in an array in front of you. A summing localization makes the apparent left and right sound sources completely outside of the speaker boxes, somewhere behind and a little wider than the actual speakers. Because the front and side walls are being used in constructing the stereo illusion, they literally disappear as "problem" reflections and behave as though they were transparent and you are listening to eight actual speakers arrayed in depth and width in front of you. Close-miked, dry recordings sound like they are right in your room with you, and wetter, more spacious recordings sound very spacious, modeling the playback after the actual reflection patterns in the hall. I get that with my arrangement. But what I also get is an amazing level of transparency. A level that I doubt possible with all those reflections. You can't help but get substantial smearing in the time domain with all those direct reflections. That's the Cliff Notes version of the results I am getting with the completely different approach from yours. I think you are depriving yourself of some enjoyable aspects of your Martin Logans by killing all reflections like that. I have Sound Labs now. But they are very similar in many ways. But the "front" wall is a much bigger issue with the Sound Labs than they were with the Martin Logans. I guess it comes with bigger drivers. |
|
#57
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is flat frequency response desirable?
On Apr 15, 7:16*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message One key to churning gullible clients is to maximize the spread between selling and buying prices. That requires that the customer feel guilty about his time with the equipment in question. Why is that? Basic economics: Buy low, sell high. Sell high? The most I'm willing to pay is MSRP, and only when I know it will be backed-up by excellent customer service. not true if a customer very badly wants to get rid of something after an unsuccessful audition in his home. Why wasn't the audition part of a pre-arranged trial? Most of the dealers around here offer free 30 day trials, etc. I think this is unheard of. My dealer would allow me to take something home, off his display room shelf during that part of the weekend while he was closed (which I often did). However I had to have it back in his hands immediately before he opened doors Monday AM. I'd be out of my mind to ask for some Magneplanar Tympani loudspeakers for a 30 day home audition. Most people, and I think I'm typical of most here, want to buy an item with a "new condition pricetag" in a sealed box. What's he eventually going to do with that 30 day auditioned item (other than sell them low)? I'm of the opinion that a customer (who supposedly is always right) only feels guilty about money spent unwisely, sometimes both true and of his own doing, others because of what he's lead to believe by a high end "rag", and yet others at the dealer's recommendation. Seems like a truism. Dealer's and manufacturer's invented the "break in" myth to help them manage that situation. If one really doesn't like something, "break in" is not going to make you like it, and much to the contrary, eventually it's going to grate on your nerves and make for you to despise it. |
|
#58
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is flat frequency response desirable?
On Apr 15, 5:47*pm, John Stone wrote:
On 4/15/09 9:25 AM, in article , " wrote: On Apr 14, 3:06*am, "Gary Eickmeier" wrote: - as an owner of dipoles, why are you so against "splashing" the sound off the walls? Because it severely damages the sound quality. Here is an article from someone who knows a thing or two about dipole loudspeakers, that takes the completely opposite view. http://linkwitzlab.com/stereo%20reproduction.htm or the AES paper, if you want to go into further detail http://linkwitzlab.com/AES'07/AES123-final2.pdf And how do you position your speakers? Close to the walls or a few feet from all walls? Niether. My speakers are about seven feet from the back (front) wall. They are rather close to the side walls but the side wall reflections are delt with by sound absorbtion from behind the speakers and a physical blocking of the early reflection points infront of the speakers and by the shape of the speakers themselves. My back (front) wall is heavily covered in absorbtion materials. My listening position is about 7 1/2 feet from the front of the speakers (near field) the rest of the room is heavily treated with absorbtion and diffusion. You definitely seem to be in the "reflections are evil" camp. Getting back to that anechoic chamber discussion, is your goal to eliminate as much reflected energy as possible? My goal is to get the best aesthetic sound quality I can. IMO the standard for that aesthetic is set by live acoustic music played in an excellent concert hall. I have found so far that the more I deaden the room and the closer I get to a pure feed directly from the speakers the better that illusion and the better the aesthetic results. If there is such a point where the room is actually too dead and starts to work against my aesthetic goals I have not found it yet. But my room, as dead as it is, is a pretty far cry from an anechoic chamber. Or do you consider some room contribution to be acceptable, even desirable? Not yet. Your selection of dipole speakers is also interesting given your statement that sound reflected off the walls is damaging to the quality. It is rather incedental that both my old Martin Logans and my current Sound Labs are dipole. I bought them for their extraordinary transparency. that transparency is compramised when I put them closer to the "front" walls and/or when I reduce the amount of sound absorbing or sound diffusing materials in the room. In short, i chose both speakers for their exceptional front wave not for their baggage coming out the rear. |
|
#59
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is flat frequency response desirable?
"John Stone" wrote in message
... On 4/15/09 9:25 AM, in article , " wrote: On Apr 14, 3:06 am, "Gary Eickmeier" wrote: - as an owner of dipoles, why are you so against "splashing" the sound off the walls? Because it severely damages the sound quality. Here is an article from someone who knows a thing or two about dipole loudspeakers, that takes the completely opposite view. http://linkwitzlab.com/stereo%20reproduction.htm Thank you, John, for an interesting read. He is starting to catch on, and he is doing it by actually using his ears and making a few valid observations. This is in contrast to the "high end" audiophiles who write in the magazines who claim to be subjectivists using their ears rather than instrumentation and specs to evaluate sound. This author, Don Barringer, seems to have read Art Benade, Dave Moulton, and possibly some of my stuff which has been in a white paper for the AES in '89 and in the BAS Speaker and SMWTMS newsletters. He is still a little too worried about frequency response analysis to explain what he is hearing, but his observations, comments, and conclusions are on the right track. The major breakthrough comes when you begin to realize that stereophonic (field-type) systems are not a head-related process like binaural, but a modeling of the real thing by means of deploying sound sources in your listening room and using your natural hearing to witness the result. In the opposite universe, where audiophiles and new engineers think that the system is one of relaying recorded signals to your ears untouched by any interfering distortions or reflections, they think the goal is a near anechoic environment and they do just the opposite of what leads to good sound and magnificent, out-of-the-box imaging. Barringer has arrived at a speaker positioning very much like what I suggest. Here is a picture of my room: http://www.pbase.com/eickmeier/image/712281 It is 21 ft wide by 31 ft long, and the speakers are placed approx 5 ft from front and side walls, which puts them 10 ft apart. I have a center channel as well now, also deployed in the reflecting mode so that the image plane is consistent across the soundstage. I am hesitant to use the "B" word because the conversation can degenerate to a particular product, but yes, I am using Bose 901s, because anything else is a room this size or smaller is way too hot on the direct sound to be able to set up the image model. If you look at the next picture in my gallery above, you can see a speaker I built a number of years ago trying to set up an ideal situation for experimentation with the concept, but I wasn't quite as good at speaker building as the Bose corporation, so I just use the 901s, which, combined with the subs, sound magnificent and can take any amount of power you put to them without distorting. The trick with a speaker with such a large amount of reflected output is positioning them in a way that USES the reflected sound images as part of the primary sound, and not nuisance reflections of a "proper" direct sound. I prefer specular, hard reflections up front for this reason, and have even peppered my front and side walls with mirror tiles, to show visitors a visual model of what they are hearing. The insight into speaker design, besides image modeling using reflected sound, is Mark Davis's statement that the audible characteristics of a speaker are mainly the frequency response and radiation pattern. Novice engineers and audiophiles have the frequency response part down pat, but have studied very little about the radiation pattern required and its audible consequences because of the confusion between binaural and field-type system theory. If you believe that all that is desired is the direct sound, then you will do everything possible to eliminate all reflections in speaker design and room treatment. And that has been the history of sound reproduction theory and practice for most of the industry thus far. This in spite of the Bose revolution of 1968 and the fantastic results from the 901s, the Magneplanars, ESL-63s, MBLs, DBX Soundfield Ones, and possibly the Ohm F, which had a large following and was basically an omni. So what's your story? Gary Eickmeier |
|
#61
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is flat frequency response desirable?
On Apr 16, 12:36*pm, John Stone wrote:
On 4/16/09 9:38 AM, in article , "Gary This in spite of the Bose revolution of 1968 and the fantastic results from the 901s, And interesting spin of history (pun very much intended). Bose revolution of 1968? (Cough, cough) Ah yes, the leopard shows his true spots at last. |
|
#62
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is flat frequency response desirable?
On Apr 16, 10:31*am, wrote:
On Apr 15, 5:47*pm, John Stone wrote: On 4/15/09 9:25 AM, in article , " wrote: On Apr 14, 3:06*am, "Gary Eickmeier" wrote: - as an owner of dipoles, why are you so against "splashing" the sound off the walls? Because it severely damages the sound quality. Here is an article from someone who knows a thing or two about dipole loudspeakers, that takes the completely opposite view. http://linkwitzlab.com/stereo%20reproduction.htm or the AES paper, if you want to go into further detail http://linkwitzlab.com/AES'07/AES123-final2.pdf And how do you position your speakers? Close to the walls or a few feet from all walls? Niether. My speakers are about seven feet from the back (front) wall. They are rather close to the side walls but the side wall reflections are delt with by sound absorbtion from behind the speakers and a physical blocking of the early reflection points infront of the speakers and by the shape of the speakers themselves. My back (front) wall is heavily covered in absorbtion materials. My listening position is about 7 1/2 feet from the front of the speakers (near field) the rest of the room is heavily treated with absorbtion and diffusion. You definitely seem to be in the "reflections are evil" camp. Getting back to that anechoic chamber discussion, is your goal to eliminate as much reflected energy as possible? My goal is to get the best aesthetic sound quality I can. IMO the standard for that aesthetic is set by live acoustic music played in an excellent concert hall. I have found so far that the more I deaden the room and the closer I get to a pure feed directly from the speakers the better that illusion and the better the aesthetic results. If there is such a point where the room is actually too dead and starts to work against my aesthetic goals I have not found it yet. But my room, as dead as it is, is a pretty far cry from an anechoic chamber. It's great to read something here with which I completely agree and matches both my goals and experiences. I've been listening to various model Maggie Tympanis for over 40 years, and more recently a 3.6R, the former in 2 homes and listening rooms. Currently I'm using a Maggie hybrid; the four Tympani IVa woofer panels + a 3.6R within a dedicated listening room (which perhaps needless to say, are dipoles). I'd say I'm listening mid-field, about 11 feet away and the array of panels extending 12 feet at their distant edges, four feet from the side walls and 4.5 feet from the front wall (that area at the rear of the speakers!) However my listening chair is on casters and is completely free to move closer and further whenever I choose. Or do you consider some room contribution to be acceptable, even desirable? Not yet. Your selection of dipole speakers is also interesting given your statement that sound reflected off the walls is damaging to the quality. It is rather incedental that both my old Martin Logans and my current Sound Labs are dipole. I bought them for their extraordinary transparency. that transparency is compramised when I put them closer to the "front" walls and/or when I reduce the amount of sound absorbing or sound diffusing materials in the room. In short, i chose both speakers for their exceptional front wave not for their baggage coming out the rear I use no sounding absorbing or diffusing materials other than vertical blinds under drape covered windows, CD, LP and component racks distributed around the room's periphery. Although the sound I hear can't match live, in part because no recording is so capable. After coming home from listening at good seats at the Metropolitan Opera, my home sound doesn't disappoint. |
|
#63
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is flat frequency response desirable?
"John Stone" wrote in message
... On 4/16/09 9:38 AM, in article , "Gary Eickmeier" wrote: Well, wait a minute, Gary. You need to look again. The author of this paper is Siegfried Linkwitz himself, not Don Barringer. Don does recording, and has been working on methods that optimize the playback model developed by Linkwitz. And I don't think Mr. Linkwitz is "starting to catch on" to anything. He's been doing this for many years. Well, the only part of that page that was signed by Linkwitz was the slideshow. The main article was completely unsigned, except that at the bottom was Don Barringer. I couldn't view the AES papers links, if those were by Linkwitz. The insight into speaker design, besides image modeling using reflected sound, is Mark Davis's statement that the audible characteristics of a speaker are mainly the frequency response and radiation pattern. Novice engineers and audiophiles have the frequency response part down pat, but have studied very little about the radiation pattern required and its audible consequences because of the confusion between binaural and field-type system theory. If you believe that all that is desired is the direct sound, then you will do everything possible to eliminate all reflections in speaker design and room treatment. Clearly, Mr. Linkwitz' work is along these same lines, but I think he has taken it to a considerably higher level. If you haven't been to his site before, you'll find a wealth of information about speaker design, room acoustics, etc. I'll take a look. And that has been the history of sound reproduction theory and practice for most of the industry thus far. This in spite of the Bose revolution of 1968 and the fantastic results from the 901s, the Magneplanars, ESL-63s, MBLs, DBX Soundfield Ones, and possibly the Ohm F, which had a large following and was basically an omni. Bose revolution of 1968? (Cough, cough) Well, it built a factory on a mountaintop. Quite successful and highly imitated. So what's your story? I've been around for a while. I've heard Mr. Linkwitz' setup and own Orions myself. I'd bet that after hearing the system at Mr. Linkwitz' home, even Scott might have to rethink his position on dipole radiation. Never. I guarantee it. Gary Eickmeier |
|
#64
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is flat frequency response desirable?
wrote in message ...
On Apr 15, 10:01 pm, "Gary Eickmeier" More to the point. Electrostatic speakers. The dipole thing is just an unfortunate by-product. I wish to make a simple observation here. As Mark Davis has shown, the audible characteristics of a speaker are its frequency response and radiation pattern. That's it. The dipole aspect of your speakers are a very audible and significant contributor to their sound. As for frequency response, if another speaker that wasn't an electrostatic had the same frequency response and radiation pattern, it wouldn't matter a whit if it was made of garbage can lids instead of electrostatic membranes, it would sound the same. The electrostaticness is not the main point. I get that with my arrangement. But what I also get is an amazing level of transparency. A level that I doubt possible with all those reflections. You can't help but get substantial smearing in the time domain with all those direct reflections. Gad, I don't want to get into another long winded discussion on this stuff. The basic psychoacoustic facts of life are that the reflections will not be heard as separate sound events, or "smearing," if they are well within the fusion time. It's like in the concert hall. Do you imagine that the contribution of the hall to the sound is detrimental? Read Art Benade, "From Instrument to Ear in a Room." He shows how the response plot of a real instrument played in a real room is a nut-house of waves and unrecognizable wiggles, but the sound of the instrument remains clear as a bell, even more identifiable, and clearly placed in the acoustic space. I have Sound Labs now. But they are very similar in many ways. But the "front" wall is a much bigger issue with the Sound Labs than they were with the Martin Logans. I guess it comes with bigger drivers. Peter Walker used to set up his ESL-63s as you describe your speaker placement - about 7 ft out from the front wall and just a foot or two from the side walls. What I heard was the back wave of the speaker filling up the area behind the speakers, giving an impression of great depth. Canny. Gary Eickmeier |
|
#65
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is flat frequency response desirable?
On Apr 17, 1:25*am, "Gary Eickmeier" wrote:
"John Stone" wrote in message Bose revolution of 1968? (Cough, cough) Well, it built a factory on a mountaintop. Quite successful Just like MacDonalds... and highly imitated. One might suggest such a spin is quite in contradiction with both the facts of the marketplace and the widespread reputation of said company's legal department. |
|
#66
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is flat frequency response desirable?
On Apr 17, 3:11*am, "Gary Eickmeier" wrote:
wrote in ... On Apr 15, 10:01 pm, "Gary Eickmeier" More to the point. Electrostatic speakers. The dipole thing is just an unfortunate by-product. I wish to make a simple observation here. As Mark Davis has shown, the audible characteristics of a speaker are its frequency response and radiation pattern. That's it. That is simply not true. There are other distortions. The dipole aspect of your speakers are a very audible and significant contributor to their sound. Not so much in my room with my set up. As for frequency response, if another speaker that wasn't an electrostatic had the same frequency response and radiation pattern, it wouldn't matter a whit if it was made of garbage can lids instead of electrostatic membranes, it would sound the same. Again that is plainly wrong. So much so that I find the assertion quite surprising. The electrostaticness is not the main point. Sure it is. Consider the mass of the driver of an electrostatic speaker for starters. I get that with my arrangement. But what I also get is an amazing level of transparency. A level that I doubt possible with all those reflections. You can't help but get substantial smearing in the time domain with all those direct reflections. Gad, I don't want to get into another long winded discussion on this stuff. The basic psychoacoustic facts of life are that the reflections will not be heard as separate sound events, or "smearing," if they are well within the fusion time. Again you are simply wrong. Our hearing acuity is quite sensitive to smearing. It's like in the concert hall. Do you imagine that the contribution of the hall to the sound is detrimental? You ask the wrong question. Is it audible? Yes. So there is your answer. We do hear the smearing. The profound mistake you seem to continue to make is the continued confusion between the concert hall and the playback room. They serve an extremely different purpose. Do you really think a concert hall is a good envirement for stereo playback? Read Art Benade, "From Instrument to Ear in a Room." He shows how the response plot of a real instrument played in a real room is a nut-house of waves and unrecognizable wiggles, but the sound of the instrument remains clear as a bell, even more identifiable, and clearly placed in the acoustic space. I see no point in reading the article. No one here is disputing the aesthetic value of reverb in live music. I have Sound Labs now. But they are very similar in many ways. But the "front" wall is a much bigger issue with the Sound Labs than they were with the Martin Logans. I guess it comes with bigger drivers. Peter Walker used to set up his ESL-63s as you describe your speaker placement - about 7 ft out from the front wall and just a foot or two from the side walls. What I heard was the back wave of the speaker filling up the area behind the speakers, giving an impression of great depth. Canny. I wonder if he had as much absorbtion material on the walls behind those speakers as I do? |
|
#67
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is flat frequency response desirable?
wrote in message
... On Apr 16, 12:36 pm, John Stone wrote: On 4/16/09 9:38 AM, in article , "Gary This in spite of the Bose revolution of 1968 and the fantastic results from the 901s, And interesting spin of history (pun very much intended). Bose revolution of 1968? (Cough, cough) Ah yes, the leopard shows his true spots at last. "True spots"? I can't help but ask what that means. Gary Eickmeier |
|
#68
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is flat frequency response desirable?
On 4/17/09 12:25 AM, in article , "Gary
Eickmeier" wrote: "John Stone" wrote in message ... On 4/16/09 9:38 AM, in article , "Gary Eickmeier" wrote: Well, wait a minute, Gary. You need to look again. The author of this paper is Siegfried Linkwitz himself, not Don Barringer. Don does recording, and has been working on methods that optimize the playback model developed by Linkwitz. And I don't think Mr. Linkwitz is "starting to catch on" to anything. He's been doing this for many years. Well, the only part of that page that was signed by Linkwitz was the slideshow. The main article was completely unsigned, except that at the bottom was Don Barringer. ??? It's Linkwitz' web site. His picture is right next to the text. The slide show was the whole point. Something tells me you didn't give this more than a cursory look. I couldn't view the AES papers links, if those were by Linkwitz. Was the link broken or don't you have a PDF reader? I tried it here and the link works fine. Well, it built a factory on a mountaintop. Quite successful and highly imitated. Leave it to the folks in MA to call a 200ft. hill a mountain. |
|
#69
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is flat frequency response desirable?
wrote in message
On Apr 17, 3:11 am, "Gary Eickmeier" wrote: wrote in ... On Apr 15, 10:01 pm, "Gary Eickmeier" More to the point. Electrostatic speakers. The dipole thing is just an unfortunate by-product. I wish to make a simple observation here. As Mark Davis has shown, the audible characteristics of a speaker are its frequency response and radiation pattern. That's it. That is simply not true. There are other distortions. It is about 90% or more true. Yes there are other distortions, but they are relatively small. The dipole aspect of your speakers are a very audible and significant contributor to their sound. Not so much in my room with my set up. You did something that is a little odd. You obtained speakers with some well-known properties that many informed people would call suboptimal. You then attempted to alleviate the suboptimal properties of your speakers by changing your room, apparently changing it profoundly. You seem to be well on your way towards creating what may be the world's largest set of headphones. ;-) As for frequency response, if another speaker that wasn't an electrostatic had the same frequency response and radiation pattern, it wouldn't matter a whit if it was made of garbage can lids instead of electrostatic membranes, it would sound the same. Again that is plainly wrong. Its about 90% or more true. So much so that I find the assertion quite surprising. Speaks to the degree to which you are properly informed about loudspeakers and rooms. The electrostaticness is not the main point. Sure it is. Consider the mass of the driver of an electrostatic speaker for starters. There is *no* useful physical system that is properly characterized by just its mass. For example, take an airplane. Does just the mass of the airplane define how it flies, how far it flies, how fast it flies, how well it flies, how much it can carry, etc.? No. This apparently will surprise you greatly. but things other than mass also matter. The same is true of loudspeakers. You have to consider more than just the mass of the driver diaphragms to understand how they work. I get that with my arrangement. But what I also get is an amazing level of transparency. A level that I doubt possible with all those reflections. You can't help but get substantial smearing in the time domain with all those direct reflections. Gad, I don't want to get into another long winded discussion on this stuff. The basic psychoacoustic facts of life are that the reflections will not be heard as separate sound events, or "smearing," if they are well within the fusion time. Again you are simply wrong. Our hearing acuity is quite sensitive to smearing. If that were really true, the time-smearing caused by our rooms would drive us bonkers. It's like in the concert hall. Do you imagine that the contribution of the hall to the sound is detrimental? You ask the wrong question. Is it audible? Yes. So there is your answer. We do hear the smearing. Hold that thought! The profound mistake you seem to continue to make is the continued confusion between the concert hall and the playback room. I perceive no confusion. For example, if you wish to reduce the colorations of the playback room to a minimum using established technology,. you can always put on headphones or better yet, earphones. They serve an extremely different purpose. Do you really think a concert hall is a good environment for stereo playback? The point you seem to have missed is that people choose to l isten to speakers in a room, for a reason. They make the choice to listen there and not by readily available alternative means. One of the inherent consequences of that choice is the acoustical presence of the room. Read Art Benade, "From Instrument to Ear in a Room." He shows how the response plot of a real instrument played in a real room is a nut-house of waves and unrecognizable wiggles, but the sound of the instrument remains clear as a bell, even more identifiable, and clearly placed in the acoustic space. I see no point in reading the article. That seems to be a pattern with you. You say many things that seem to result from a recurrent choice to not be well-read. No one here is disputing the aesthetic value of reverb in live music. The point is missed, again. I have Sound Labs now. But they are very similar in many ways. But the "front" wall is a much bigger issue with the Sound Labs than they were with the Martin Logans. I guess it comes with bigger drivers. Peter Walker used to set up his ESL-63s as you describe your speaker placement - about 7 ft out from the front wall and just a foot or two from the side walls. What I heard was the back wave of the speaker filling up the area behind the speakers, giving an impression of great depth. Canny. I wonder if he had as much absorption material on the walls behind those speakers as I do? Hard to know in the absence of relevant facts. |
|
#70
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is flat frequency response desirable?
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
I wish to make a simple observation here. As Mark Davis has shown, the audible characteristics of a speaker are its frequency response and radiation pattern. That's it. Well, there is distortion too .. and that is very audible, especially high frequency intermod. But the radiation pattern is not a simple thing. That is, a speaker is not a point source. Nor is your usual dipole radiator a simple planar source, because of standing modes on the radiator. Below a certain frequency, yes, any speaker is effectively a point. But for dipoles that is very low indeed. Doug McDonald |
|
#71
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is flat frequency response desirable?
On Apr 17, 11:41*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message On Apr 17, 3:11 am, "Gary Eickmeier" wrote: wrote in ... More to the point. Electrostatic speakers. The dipole thing is just an unfortunate by-product. I wish to make a simple observation here. As Mark Davis has shown, the audible characteristics of a speaker are its frequency response and radiation pattern. That's it. That is simply not true. There are other distortions. It is about 90% or more true. No. There are no percentages here. The statement is one that is either true or not true. In this case it is not true. Yes there are other distortions, Exactly, which makes the assertion that " the audible characteristics of a speaker are its frequency response and radiation pattern. That's it." a false statement. but they are relatively small. Relative to what? By what measure? Your assertion lacks the context needed to have any utility or meaning. The dipole aspect of your speakers are a very audible and significant contributor to their sound. Not so much in my room with my set up. You did something that is a little odd. You obtained speakers with some well-known properties that many informed people would call suboptimal. Informed people know that every speaker system in the world has "suboptimal properties" so your assertion about that is both obvious and fairly useless. You then attempted to alleviate the suboptimal properties of your speakers by changing your room, Yeah. That is considered smart in most audio circles. Are you suggesting that it is anything other than a good idea to optimise the listening room for the specific speakers being used in that room? apparently changing it profoundly. Yes, all for a good cause. You seem to be well on your way towards creating what may be the world's largest set of headphones. ;-) Not at all. I have headphones. They are nothing like my speaker/room set up. My speakers sit in front of the listening position. They are about seven and a half feet apart. the listening position and the speakers form a near equalateral triangle. This is an ideal arrangement for excellent stereo recordings. You can't get any kind of an illusion of realistic imaging from headphones with the vast majority of stereo recordings because they simply aren';t binaural. As for frequency response, if another speaker that wasn't an electrostatic had the same frequency response and radiation pattern, it wouldn't matter a whit if it was made of garbage can lids instead of electrostatic membranes, it would sound the same. Again that is plainly wrong. Its about 90% or more true. No, as above it either is or is not true. It plainly is not true. I think you will find yourself in quite the minority amoung speaker designers when it comes to such a dismissal of materials used in making drivers. So much so that I find the assertion quite surprising. Speaks to the degree to which you are properly informed about loudspeakers and rooms. Yes. It shows that I have done my home work on the subject. The electrostaticness is not the main point. Sure it is. Consider the mass of the driver of an electrostatic speaker for starters. There is *no* useful physical system that is properly characterized by just its mass. Straw man. I didn't say anything of the sort. By suggesting that one consider the advantages of the mass of an electrostatic speaker i am not suggesting, implying or saying in any other way that one can chgaracterize electrostatic speakers or any other speaker by mass alone. I get that with my arrangement. But what I also get is an amazing level of transparency. A level that I doubt possible with all those reflections. You can't help but get substantial smearing in the time domain with all those direct reflections. Gad, I don't want to get into another long winded discussion on this stuff. The basic psychoacoustic facts of life are that the reflections will not be heard as separate sound events, or "smearing," if they are well within the fusion time. Again you are simply wrong. Our hearing acuity is quite sensitive to smearing. If that were really true, the time-smearing caused by our rooms would drive us bonkers. How did you reach that deduction? Please explain the logic. It's like in the concert hall. Do you imagine that the contribution of the hall to the sound is detrimental? You ask the wrong question. Is it audible? Yes. So there is your answer. We do hear the smearing. Hold that thought! Holding. (I read ahead, you never get back to it) The profound mistake you seem to continue to make is the continued confusion between the concert hall and the playback room. I perceive no confusion. Your perception is not the arbitrator of the truth of my assertion. It is entirely possible that you are simply suffering from the same confusion. *For example, if you wish to reduce the colorations of the playback room to a minimum using established technology,. you can always put on headphones or better yet, earphones. What does that have to do with my assertion that the other poster is confusing the basic princples of acoustics of a concert hall with the basic principles of acoustics for a playback room? We are not talking about headphones here. we are talking about room acoustics for speakers. They serve an extremely different purpose. Do you really think a concert hall is a good environment for stereo playback? The point you seem to have missed is that people choose to l isten to speakers in a room, *for a reason. They make the choice to listen there and not by readily available alternative means. One of the inherent consequences of that choice is the acoustical presence of the room. What are you trying to say? It seems you are asserting that by choosing to use speakers instead of headphones one should simply live with the acoustics of the listening room instead of making an effort to optimise the acoustics of that listening room. If that is what you are asserting then you are plainly wrong. I suggest you read up on some literature on acoustics for playback rooms. You will see that the experts highly recomend room optimization. If that isn't what you are asserting then perhaps you should try to explain just what it is you are trying to say. Read Art Benade, "From Instrument to Ear in a Room." He shows how the response plot of a real instrument played in a real room is a nut-house of waves and unrecognizable wiggles, but the sound of the instrument remains clear as a bell, even more identifiable, and clearly placed in the acoustic space. I see no point in reading the article. That seems to be a pattern with you. One gets quite adept at sniffing out irrelevant references on rec.audio. high end. You say many things that seem to result from a recurrent choice to not be well-read. That is your misperception. But I know that I need not read another article on concert hall acoustics when we are debating playback room acoustics. That is because I have already read enough liturature on room acoustics to know the profound differences between excellent acoustics in a concert hall and excellent acoustics in a dedicated playback room. No one here is disputing the aesthetic value of reverb in live music. The point is missed, again. Yes, but by whom? Me thinks you missed the point and that you also seem to suffer from a profound confusion about the differences between the acoustics of a concert hall and the acoustics of a playback room. I have Sound Labs now. But they are very similar in many ways. But the "front" wall is a much bigger issue with the Sound Labs than they were with the Martin Logans. I guess it comes with bigger drivers. Peter Walker used to set up his ESL-63s as you describe your speaker placement - about 7 ft out from the front wall and just a foot or two from the side walls. What I heard was the back wave of the speaker filling up the area behind the speakers, giving an impression of great depth. Canny. I wonder if he had as much absorption material on the walls behind those speakers as I do? Hard to know in the absence of relevant facts. Then one can't really point to that as evidence of anything. |
|
#72
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is flat frequency response desirable?
wrote in message ...
On Apr 17, 11:41 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: That is your misperception. But I know that I need not read another article on concert hall acoustics when we are debating playback room acoustics. That is because I have already read enough liturature on room acoustics to know the profound differences between excellent acoustics in a concert hall and excellent acoustics in a dedicated playback room. No one here is disputing the aesthetic value of reverb in live music. The point is missed, again. Yes, but by whom? Me thinks you missed the point and that you also seem to suffer from a profound confusion about the differences between the acoustics of a concert hall and the acoustics of a playback room. No S888Wheel, there is no confusion between concert hall acoustics and listening room acoustics. But there is great confusion between binaural systems and stereophonic (field-type) systems. Imagine that you had made a recording with a binaural head in a great concert hall. You would have placed the head in the ideal listening seat, and it would have received all of the sound signals you wanted to preserve: the direct sound of the instruments, the early reflected sound, and the reverberant field. For playback, you would want to present only those signals to your ears, and even to the extent of making sure that each channel went only to the appropriate ear. You would not want another acoustic space superimposed on what was recorded, because that would confuse the perception of the recorded space that you have so cleverly captured. OK so far? Is this a perfect system or what? Everything you have said above and in previous posts is true. The problem is, you are theorizing the same goals for your stereo playback, and the stereophonic system does not work that way. The recording itself was made with the microphones much closer to the instruments, and even with multiple mikes if the situation called for it. And there is nothing wrong with that! Playback is meant to happen in another acoustic space, done in a way that models the playback horizontal reflection pattern after the original. That would be a much longer story, so permit me to just focus in on one tiny aspect of loudspeaker reproduction. In your playback room, both of your ears are meant to hear both speakers, using your natural hearing, not some "trick" pseudo binaural attempt to present just the signals from the speakers straight into your ears. You perceive the left stage sounds as coming from the left speaker, and the same from the right, and summing localization works quite well for everything in between. But if you confuse this system with the binaural system where that IS meant to happen, that is, that you want your ears to hear only the two recorded channels from the speakers and nothing else, what will result is that all of the sound that was recorded, the direct, early reflected, and reverberant sound, will be heard to come from only those two point sources, and it will sound TERRIBLE. It has frequently been described as harsh, strident, or irritating. And this is especially true if you have mistakenly equalized for flat response at the listening position. We can alleviate this harshness somewhat by using at least very wide radiation patterns, and even dipolar and omnidirectional speakers. This helps to get the sound OUTSIDE the speaker boxes by means of reflection from the surfaces around them. Note carefully that this is NOT the same as listening to an omni in a free field, because then you would be right back to two point sources with all of the recorded sound coming from those two points, very unnatural sounding and not even decoding the recorded imaging and acoustics properly. Also note that setting up this pattern of reflections is NOT an attempt to manufacture the acoustics of the original hall, but to decode the acoustics that were recorded. Finally, note that by deadening all of the surfaces around your speakers you have defeated any chance of your dipoles getting a little spaciousness and depth out of the recording. You may believe that it is working for you because that is what you are used to, but I think if you listen with a new critical perspective you may note that if any of the sounds in the stereo field get away from center, they seem to collapse into the grills of each speaker, rather than arraying themselves in an even plane behind and around the speakers. I have become particularly sensitive to that and find it really annoying. All of this is my observations of many years combined with a lot of reading and talking with engineers and acousticians and formulating a few theories of my own. When we talk about this "headphone effect from speakers" we are talking about the mistaken attempt to present only the sound from the speakers to your ears. I experienced this full force one fine afternoon listening to a pair of Acoustats. These were planar electrostats that were extremely directional at all frequencies. They sat me down quite close to them in the classic (and also mistaken) equilateral triangle, and when the music started playing I thought my ears were being sucked off. I just about ran from the room. I guess the sales people were blissfully happy with this effect, but you can have it if that is what you are trying for. I have not heard your room and you have not heard mine, so I guess we'll have to leave it at that. You may not have killed as much of the high frequency sound as you think you have, and it may just sound fine. All I can do is speak in a general way and report that what I have read about acoustics etc. agrees with observation, and I now know why extremely directional speakers do NOT sound good, and am willing to divulge it to whoever is willing to listen - so to speak. Gary Eickmeier |
|
#73
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is flat frequency response desirable?
On Apr 19, 7:03*pm, "Gary Eickmeier" wrote:
wrote in ... On Apr 17, 11:41 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: That is your misperception. But I know that I need not read another article on concert hall acoustics when we are debating playback room acoustics. That is because I have already read enough liturature on room acoustics to know the profound differences between excellent acoustics in a concert hall and excellent acoustics in a dedicated playback room. No one here is disputing the aesthetic value of reverb in live music. The point is missed, again. Yes, but by whom? Me thinks you missed the point and that you also seem to suffer from a profound confusion about the differences between the acoustics of a concert hall and the acoustics of a playback room. No S888Wheel, there is no confusion between concert hall acoustics and listening room acoustics. But there is great confusion between binaural systems and stereophonic (field-type) systems. There is? By whom? Imagine that you had made a recording with a binaural head in a great concert hall. You would have placed the head in the ideal listening seat, and it would have received all of the sound signals you wanted to preserve: the direct sound of the instruments, the early reflected sound, and the reverberant field. For playback, you would want to present only those signals to your ears, and even to the extent of making sure that each channel went only to the appropriate ear. You would not want another acoustic space superimposed on what was recorded, because that would confuse the perception of the recorded space that you have so cleverly captured. Yeah....that's how binaural recordings are made more or less and that is how they are supposed to work OK so far? So far.... Is this a perfect system or what? Not perfect. That system does not acount for human head movement. But that is another topic. lets say if one had the perfect binaural recording and headphone system. That would probably be the best one can get from any sort of stereophonic recording and playback system. Everything you have said above and in previous posts is true. The problem is, you are theorizing the same goals for your stereo playback, and the stereophonic system does not work that way. No I am not. My playback system is more or less the counter of a Blumlien configuration. It is based on *that* particular approach to stereo recording and playback. It just so happens that most other stereo recordings happen to sound their best with the same configuration. (yes that is my opinion) The recording itself was made with the microphones much closer to the instruments, whoa hold on there. What recording? Were we discussing a specific recording? and even with multiple mikes if the situation called for it. And there is nothing wrong with that! Playback is meant to happen in another acoustic space, done in a way that models the playback horizontal reflection pattern after the original. That would be a much longer story, so permit me to just focus in on one tiny aspect of loudspeaker reproduction. Sorry but I think you are just making this part up. It certainly is not true for minimalist recordings. IME it certainly is not the case for most conventional stereo recordings. In your playback room, both of your ears are meant to hear both speakers, using your natural hearing, not some "trick" pseudo binaural attempt to present just the signals from the speakers straight into your ears. There is no pseudo binaural anything going on with my setup. Again it is basically a counter to a Blumlien configuration. It is set up using conventional, not binaural stereo recordings from state of the art minimalist recordings to multi-track studio creations. You perceive the left stage sounds as coming from the left speaker, and the same from the right, and summing localization works quite well for everything in between. But if you confuse this system with the binaural system where that IS meant to happen, that is, that you want your ears to hear only the two recorded channels from the speakers and nothing else, what will result is that all of the sound that was recorded, the direct, early reflected, and reverberant sound, will be heard to come from only those two point sources, and it will sound TERRIBLE. Clearly that isn't what I am doing nor is it what is happening. I actually do listen to my system. I know what I am hearing. The illusion of a three dimensional sound space in which instruments are portrayed in a life like manner is pretty uncanny with the right minimalist recordings with my system set up the way it is set up. that illusion so far has been aided by everything I have done to minimize the affects of the room itself on the playback. this is not some theory. I know this from years of practice. It has frequently been described as harsh, strident, or irritating. And this is especially true if you have mistakenly equalized for flat response at the listening position. The only time I get harsh, strident or irritating sound is when that is the character of the source material. We can alleviate this harshness somewhat by using at least very wide radiation patterns, and even dipolar and omnidirectional speakers. There are other ways of alleviating harshness commonly found in stereo recording and playback through the careful selection of hardware and source material. Not only does this go a long way to alleviate said harshness but it does so without losing the life like qualities one can often find in world class recording and playback. Something I have always found severely crippled by listening rooms with excessive reverb or by positioning of dipoles to close to the front wall. This helps to get the sound OUTSIDE the speaker boxes by means of reflection from the surfaces around them. If you want greater width you can simply move the speakers further apart. That way you aren't smearing the initial wave. Note carefully that this is NOT the same as listening to an omni in a free field, because then you would be right back to two point sources with all of the recorded sound coming from those two points, very unnatural sounding and not even decoding the recorded imaging and acoustics properly. Again I thgink you are plainly wrong there having heard extraordinary imaging from my system. Also note that setting up this pattern of reflections is NOT an attempt to manufacture the acoustics of the original hall, but to decode the acoustics that were recorded. O.K. please explain how this "decodes" anything? what is the mechanisms of 'encoding" and "decoding" going on here? I'm sorry but that is complete nonsense. No such "decoding" and encoding is taking place with conventional stereo recording and playback. Any reflections off the walls are purely distrotion. If *you* like those particular distortions I'm not going to argue with *your* aesthetic preferences. I have no issue with the use oif distortions to compensate for inherent insuficiancies of stereo recording and playback for the purpose of creating a better illusion of live music. BUT IME bouncing the sound off the walls isn't a distortion that achieves that goal. Quite the opposite. It consistantly screws it up. Again I am speaking from my personal 20+ years of experience with dipoles. Finally, note that by deadening all of the surfaces around your speakers you have defeated any chance of your dipoles getting a little spaciousness and depth out of the recording. That is simply not true. I know. I have actually listened to my system. You have not. You may believe that it is working for you because that is what you are used to, but I think if you listen with a new critical perspective you may note that if any of the sounds in the stereo field get away from center, they seem to collapse into the grills of each speaker, rather than arraying themselves in an even plane behind and around the speakers. Nope. That simply is not what is happening. I have become particularly sensitive to that and find it really annoying. All of this is my observations of many years combined with a lot of reading and talking with engineers and acousticians and formulating a few theories of my own. When we talk about this "headphone effect from speakers" we are talking about the mistaken attempt to present only the sound from the speakers to your ears. I experienced this full force one fine afternoon listening to a pair of Acoustats. These were planar electrostats that were extremely directional at all frequencies. They sat me down quite close to them in the classic (and also mistaken) equilateral triangle, and when the music started playing I thought my ears were being sucked off. I just about ran from the room. I guess the sales people were blissfully happy with this effect, but you can have it if that is what you are trying for. I have not heard your room and you have not heard mine, so I guess we'll have to leave it at that. You may not have killed as much of the high frequency sound as you think you have, and it may just sound fine. All I can do is speak in a general way and report that what I have read about acoustics etc. agrees with observation, and I now know why extremely directional speakers do NOT sound good, and am willing to divulge it to whoever is willing to listen - so to speak. Then I guess we will leave it at that. |
|
#74
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is flat frequency response desirable?
wrote in message
... On Apr 19, 7:03 pm, "Gary Eickmeier" wrote: This helps to get the sound OUTSIDE the speaker boxes by means of reflection from the surfaces around them. If you want greater width you can simply move the speakers further apart. That way you aren't smearing the initial wave. Aye, there's the rub. I have discovered that with speakers that are more omnidirectional, moving them farther apart actually has the opposite effect, because when you move them closer to the side walls, their reflected images move closer together and cause a "clustering" of images near the actual speakers. This is the main reason for a perception of 6-foot wide soloists and vague center imaging. You maximize image width (total soundstage width) by placing the speakers 1/4 of the room width away from the side walls. Also note that setting up this pattern of reflections is NOT an attempt to manufacture the acoustics of the original hall, but to decode the acoustics that were recorded. O.K. please explain how this "decodes" anything? what is the mechanisms of 'encoding" and "decoding" going on here? I'm sorry but that is complete nonsense. No such "decoding" and encoding is taking place with conventional stereo recording and playback. Any reflections off the walls are purely distrotion. If *you* like those particular distortions I'm not going to argue with *your* aesthetic preferences. I have no issue with the use oif distortions to compensate for inherent insuficiancies of stereo recording and playback for the purpose of creating a better illusion of live music. BUT IME bouncing the sound off the walls isn't a distortion that achieves that goal. Quite the opposite. It consistantly screws it up. Again I am speaking from my personal 20+ years of experience with dipoles. Perhaps the easiest way to ease into this subject is to refer to surround sound decoders. They can do a fairly effective job of decoding the ambience from a two channel recording by means of placing extra speakers behind and/or beside you with some time delay so that they do not move the frontal sound image around. Most people find that with such a setup - and we are not talking about echo simulation programs here, such as "Movie Theater," "Jazz Club," and 'Rock Concert" - we are talking about just simple Dolby Surround, for example. If the recording is very dry it doesn't change that - everything just stays up front and intimate. But if it contains a lot of ambience, the surround speakers seem to bring that around and out of the recording a lot better than just the two front speakers alone. So if surround sound can bring out the full reverberant field a little better than stereo alone, what I am proposing is that some extra sound sources from behind and to the frontal sides of the main speakers can bring out the early reflected sounds that were recorded better than the two speakers alone. I achieve that by means of reflection; some people do it with extra speakers near the front sidewalls on delay. The key to this whole operation is to realize that all of the recorded sounds have been reduced to two channels (in simple stereo recordings), so to present all of those sounds from just the locations of the direct sounds of the instruments is an error. You get the big picture on this by making a drawing of the instruments on a soundstage along with their first reflections from the walls around them, then arranging the speakers in your home in a similar geometric pattern to model the direct, early reflected, and full reverberant fields after the real thing. The early reflected is taken care of by the reflected output of the front speakers, and the reverberant by the surround speakers on delay. All of this in an effort to correct the SPATIAL part of the playback. The TEMPORAL will be contained in the recording to whatever extent it was recorded. I call my approach Image Modeling, and my paper was An Image Model Theory for Stereophonic Sound. Gary Eickmeier |
|
#75
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is flat frequency response desirable?
On Apr 21, 7:20*am, "Gary Eickmeier" wrote:
wrote in message ... On Apr 19, 7:03 pm, "Gary Eickmeier" wrote: This helps to get the sound OUTSIDE the speaker boxes by means of reflection from the surfaces around them. If you want greater width you can simply move the speakers further apart. That way you aren't smearing the initial wave. Aye, there's the rub. I have discovered that with speakers that are more omnidirectional, moving them farther apart actually has the opposite effect, because when you move them closer to the side walls, their reflected images move closer together and cause a "clustering" of images near the actual speakers. This is the main reason for a perception of 6-foot wide soloists and vague center imaging. You maximize image width (total soundstage width) by placing the speakers 1/4 of the room width away from the side walls. I don't doubt that moving omnis close to the side walls will screw up the imaging. I believe this has been my position fromt he get go. You need a big room to make omnis work well at all. OTOH this is not sucha big problem with dipoles. But... the idea isn't to maximize width, it's to get it right. Also note that setting up this pattern of reflections is NOT an attempt to manufacture the acoustics of the original hall, but to decode the acoustics that were recorded. O.K. please explain how this "decodes" anything? what is the mechanisms of 'encoding" and "decoding" going on here? I'm sorry but that is complete nonsense. No such "decoding" and encoding is taking place with conventional stereo recording and playback. Any reflections off the walls are purely distrotion. If *you* like those particular distortions I'm not going to argue with *your* aesthetic preferences. I have no issue with the use oif distortions to compensate for inherent insuficiancies of stereo recording and playback for the purpose of creating a better illusion of live music. BUT IME bouncing the sound off the walls isn't a distortion that achieves that goal. Quite the opposite. It consistantly screws it up. Again I am speaking from my personal 20+ years of experience with dipoles. Perhaps the easiest way to ease into this subject is to refer to surround sound decoders. They can do a fairly effective job of decoding the ambience from a two channel recording by means of placing extra speakers behind and/or beside you with some time delay so that they do not move the frontal sound image around. Most people find that with such a setup - and we are not talking about echo simulation programs here, such as "Movie Theater," "Jazz Club," and 'Rock Concert" - we are talking about just simple Dolby Surround, for example. If the recording is very dry it doesn't change that - everything just stays up front and intimate. But if it contains a lot of ambience, the surround speakers seem to bring that around and out of the recording a lot better than just the two front speakers alone. How does it manage to seperate the ambient information from everything else? So if surround sound can bring out the full reverberant field a little better than stereo alone, That's a great big if as far as I'm concerned.... what I am proposing is that some extra sound sources from behind and to the frontal sides of the main speakers can bring out the early reflected sounds that were recorded better than the two speakers alone. No way. The ambient sound is already on the recording if the recording was done well or even close to done well. You are just taking the direct sound and the ambient sound and then splashing it off the walls to bring out the ambient sound of the listening room. That is purely destructive coloration if one is looking for an illusion of the original event. I achieve that by means of reflection; some people do it with extra speakers near the front sidewalls on delay. The key to this whole operation is to realize that all of the recorded sounds have been reduced to two channels (in simple stereo recordings), so to present all of those sounds from just the locations of the direct sounds of the instruments is an error. Hold on here. You just said that "all" the recorded sound has been reduced to two chanels. that is true, that includes the ambient sound. so if it's done well the playback is playing the direct sound and the reverb from the original venue. It's already there. You don't need to add reverb with your listening room. You get the big picture on this by making a drawing of the instruments on a soundstage along with their first reflections from the walls around them, then arranging the speakers in your home in a similar geometric pattern to model the direct, early reflected, and full reverberant fields after the real thing. Um, how do you do this with an orchestral recording? How does one take two speakers and arrange them in a similar geometric pattern of an actual orchestra? Your listening room must be a whole lot bigger than mine with over a hundred channels! Gary, stereo is an auraal illusion. Stereo recording and playback is not designed ot be a reconstruct of the original event. It's like 3D movies. You are trying to use stereo in a way it simply was not designed to be used. The early reflected is taken care of by the reflected output of the front speakers, and the reverberant by the surround speakers on delay. All of this in an effort to correct the SPATIAL part of the playback. The TEMPORAL will be contained in the recording to whatever extent it was recorded. Yeah except you can't seperate the direct sound and reflected sound on the recording and the reflected sound of the listening room is not the same as the concert hall and the speakers aren't matching the instruments etc etc etc. Stereo just doesn't work that way. I call my approach Image Modeling, and my paper was An Image Model Theory for Stereophonic Sound. Gary Eickmeier- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
|
#76
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is flat frequency response desirable?
On Apr 22, 10:45*am, wrote:
No way. The ambient sound is already on the recording if the recording was done well or even close to done well. You are just taking the direct sound and the ambient sound and then splashing it off the walls to bring out the ambient sound of the listening room. That is purely destructive coloration if one is looking for an illusion of the original event. I achieve that by means of reflection; some people do it with extra speakers near the front sidewalls on delay. The key to this whole operation is to realize that all of the recorded sounds have been reduced to two channels (in simple stereo recordings), so to present all of those sounds from just the locations of the direct sounds of the instruments is an error. Hold on here. You just said that "all" the recorded sound has been reduced to two chanels. that is true, that includes the ambient sound. so if it's done well the playback is playing the direct sound and the reverb from the original venue. It's already there. You don't need to add reverb with your listening room. You get the big picture on this by making a drawing of the instruments on a soundstage along with their first reflections from the walls around them, then arranging the speakers in your home in a similar geometric pattern to model the direct, early reflected, and full reverberant fields after the real thing. Um, how do you do this with an orchestral recording? How does one take two speakers and arrange them in a similar geometric pattern of an actual orchestra? Your listening room must be a whole lot bigger than mine with over a hundred channels! Gary, stereo is an auraal illusion. Stereo recording and playback is not designed ot be a reconstruct of the original event. It's like 3D movies. You are trying to use stereo in a way it simply was not designed to be used. to correct the SPATIAL part of the playback. The TEMPORAL will be contained in the recording to whatever extent it was recorded. Yeah except you can't seperate the direct sound and reflected sound on the recording and the reflected sound of the listening room is not the same as the concert hall and the speakers aren't matching the instruments etc etc etc. Stereo just doesn't work that way. If one had a way, electronics and speakers etc. to fill a hall with sound, and the played any stereo recording of any orchestral work, it still wouldn't in any significant way sound like the original performance, so how and why would it do so in any listening room using any speaker system (under the sun)? |
|
#77
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is flat frequency response desirable?
wrote in message
... On Apr 21, 7:20 am, "Gary Eickmeier" wrote: How does it manage to seperate the ambient information from everything else? The precedence effect. No way. The ambient sound is already on the recording if the recording was done well or even close to done well. You are just taking the direct sound and the ambient sound and then splashing it off the walls to bring out the ambient sound of the listening room. That is purely destructive coloration if one is looking for an illusion of the original event. .... Hold on here. You just said that "all" the recorded sound has been reduced to two chanels. that is true, that includes the ambient sound. so if it's done well the playback is playing the direct sound and the reverb from the original venue. It's already there. You don't need to add reverb with your listening room. Not adding reverb, just changing the spatial aspects of playback. It is very difficult for someone new to all this to understand the difference between spatial and temporal. Suffice it to say that a single reflection does not make reverberation if it is within the fusion time. The great confusion of stereo playback is "two speakers, two ears." People just naturally think that the idea is to simply fill your two ears with the pure sound from the two speakers, then you will hear all of the ambience contained in the recording. I'm telling you that it is a field-type system in which the idea is to recreate the performance by placing sound sources in your playback space in positions that are geometrically similar to the original locations. This could be any number of speakers and channels, doesn't have to be two, and so has nothing whatsoever to do with the number of ears on your head. We place sound sources around us and listen with our natural hearing, not with some giant binaural hearing effect. Um, how do you do this with an orchestral recording? How does one take two speakers and arrange them in a similar geometric pattern of an actual orchestra? Your listening room must be a whole lot bigger than mine with over a hundred channels! Gary, stereo is an auraal illusion. Stereo recording and playback is not designed ot be a reconstruct of the original event. It's like 3D movies. You are trying to use stereo in a way it simply was not designed to be used. The minimum number of speakers to get some sort of auditory perspective effect is two. It's just a simplification, not the principle of how it works. Could have three or five. Or seven. Or twenty-one. The early reflected is taken care of by the reflected output of the front speakers, and the reverberant by the surround speakers on delay. All of this in an effort to correct the SPATIAL part of the playback. The TEMPORAL will be contained in the recording to whatever extent it was recorded. Yeah except you can't seperate the direct sound and reflected sound on the recording and the reflected sound of the listening room is not the same as the concert hall and the speakers aren't matching the instruments etc etc etc. Stereo just doesn't work that way. Oh? How does it work? Gary Eickmeier |
|
#78
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is flat frequency response desirable?
wrote in message ...
On Apr 22, 10:45 am, wrote: If one had a way, electronics and speakers etc. to fill a hall with sound, and the played any stereo recording of any orchestral work, it still wouldn't in any significant way sound like the original performance, so how and why would it do so in any listening room using any speaker system (under the sun)? This is another misunderstanding of the system. We aren't always and only trying to transport the listener to the concert hall. With binaural we are, yes, but not with field-type systems. It's a sort of continuum in which we might try for that effect (like with classical sometimes) and we might just sometimes want to transport the performance to our listening room. That is exactly what Edgar Vilchur was doing with his live vs recorded demos at A.R. If you close-mike an instrument and play it back next to the real instrument, you can fool the listener quite easily, because both sounds take on the acoustics of the playback space. If you do that with several instruments, then arrange the speakers in similar geometric positions, you can have a little "player orchestra," something like a player piano - perhaps the ultimate in electronic realism! This is a fascinating, difficult subject. I have read two opinions now that Floyd Toole's new book on loudspeakers and acoustics comes up short in a few areas. It's just not a pat science yet, because there are so many variables and because there is not and has never been a definitive theory for stereophonic sound that gets it all right and covers all bases. Except for mine, of course. Gary Eickmeier |
|
#79
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is flat frequency response desirable?
On Apr 23, 8:11*pm, "Gary Eickmeier" wrote:
wrote in message ... On Apr 21, 7:20 am, "Gary Eickmeier" wrote: How does it manage to seperate the ambient information from everything else? The precedence effect. I'll bite, what's that? No way. The ambient sound is already on the recording if the recording was done well or even close to done well. You are just taking the direct sound and the ambient sound and then splashing it off the walls to bring out the ambient sound of the listening room. That is purely destructive coloration if one is looking for an illusion of the original event. ... Hold on here. You just said that "all" the recorded sound has been reduced to two chanels. that is true, that includes the ambient sound. so if it's done well the playback is playing the direct sound and the reverb from the original venue. It's already there. You don't need to add reverb with your listening room. Not adding reverb, just changing the spatial aspects of playback. Any reflected sound off the walls of the listening room is reverb. So yes, you are advocating that additional reverb from the listening room be added to the sound. It is very difficult for someone new to all this to understand the difference between spatial and temporal. Suffice it to say that a single reflection does not make reverberation if it is within the fusion time. The great confusion of stereo playback is "two speakers, two ears." People just naturally think that the idea is to simply fill your two ears with the pure sound from the two speakers, then you will hear all of the ambience contained in the recording. I'm telling you that it is a field-type system in which the idea is to recreate the performance by placing sound sources in your playback space in positions that are geometrically similar to the original locations. This could be any number of speakers and channels, doesn't have to be two, and so has nothing whatsoever to do with the number of ears on your head. We place sound sources around us and listen with our natural hearing, not with some giant binaural hearing effect. Yes, you are telling me that. Telling me that doesn't make it correct. I'm telling you that it is incorrect. I'm telling you that in fact stereo recordings (at least the good ones intended to create an illusion of the original event) are designed to capture and then playback the direct and reverberant sound in two chanels. I'm telling you that there is no built in encoding and decoding of ambient sound on conventional stereo recordings that must be decoded by bouncing the sound off the walls of the listening room. I'm telling you taht by bouncing the sound from the speakers off the walls all you are actually doing is coloring the output with the sound of the listening room. Um, how do you do this with an orchestral recording? How does one take two speakers and arrange them in a similar geometric pattern of an actual orchestra? Your listening room must be a whole lot bigger than mine with over a hundred channels! Gary, stereo is an auraal illusion. Stereo recording and playback is not designed ot be a reconstruct of the original event. It's like 3D movies. You are trying to use stereo in a way it simply was not designed to be used. The minimum number of speakers to get some sort of auditory perspective effect is two. It's just a simplification, not the principle of how it works. Could have three or five. Or seven. Or twenty-one. The early reflected is taken care of by the reflected output of the front speakers, and the reverberant by the surround speakers on delay. All of this in an effort to correct the SPATIAL part of the playback. The TEMPORAL will be contained in the recording to whatever extent it was recorded. Yeah except you can't seperate the direct sound and reflected sound on the recording and the reflected sound of the listening room is not the same as the concert hall and the speakers aren't matching the instruments etc etc etc. Stereo just doesn't work that way. Oh? How does it work? It is an aural illusion that relies on phase, SPL and time differences between the two chanels to encode and decode the spacial cues present at the original event. Bouncing the sound off the walls screws with two of those three properties that create the aural illusion an original acoustic event. |
|
#80
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is flat frequency response desirable?
On Apr 24, 1:09*am, "Gary Eickmeier" wrote:
wrote in ... On Apr 22, 10:45 am, wrote: If one had a way, electronics and speakers etc. to fill a hall with sound, and the played any stereo recording of any orchestral work, it still wouldn't in any significant way sound like the original performance, so how and why would it do so in any listening room using any speaker system (under the sun)? This is another misunderstanding of the system. We aren't always and only trying to transport the listener to the concert hall. With binaural we are, yes, but not with field-type systems. It's a sort of continuum in which we might try for that effect (like with classical sometimes) and we might just sometimes want to transport the performance to our listening room. That is exactly what Edgar Vilchur was doing with his live vs recorded demos at A.R. If you close-mike an instrument and play it back next to the real instrument, you can fool the listener quite easily, because both sounds take on the acoustics of the playback space. If you do that with several instruments, then arrange the speakers in similar geometric positions, you can have a little "player orchestra," something like a player piano - perhaps the ultimate in electronic realism! Not quite sure if this is for my benefit or for general information, if the former, you are preaching to the choir. Since I'm totally convinced that no recording can ever transport me into my seat at the Met, it might as well do something yet better and which it's even more capable of doing. Use multi-miking, compression, 'spot-lighting' and/ or I really coudn't care less whatever trick it requires, but allow me the chance of better listening to the musically significant part of any performance. This requires clever and intelligent engineering, and thankfully in more recent times, (and BTW no thanks to MCH) I'm hearing more of this. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Why are mic made with non flat frequency response? | Pro Audio | |||
| Frequency Response of XM | High End Audio | |||
| Frequency response | Pro Audio | |||
| Frequency response | Pro Audio | |||
| Mic Frequency Response | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
