John - I completely agree. In a live concert I can't either. But you completely miss the point. Classical music in a concert hall is not the only type of recording that there is!
well well.. that's a start I would say! You see, everybody compromise on something.. I don't mind not pin pointing Eminem to be honest..
Do you mean concertgebouw? Concertgebouw - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia gebouw is just dutch for building.it depends the hall really. the late XIX century most famous, and best halls were made accordingly to the music played, which was.. late romantic symphonic works. they do act as blenders, they litteraly transform the tones of intruments, the probably most radical approach being the one Wagner choose for Bayreuth and the covered pit, but that works as support for the music, not against it. I have never been to the Gebouw, or Musikverein, but it seems very clear that you cannot pin point intruments there.. A more "baroque" venue, smaller, with less volume per seat, the Garnier type, would make it possible as long as you don't seat too much at the back.
I believe the Zurich Tonhalle share similar features with the first group, would be nice to know what Markus who is a regular attendant has to say.
I agree.
I find that people, instruments and everyday sounds are not pinpoint but each has a sonic "glow". Even out doors.
So in a concert or a duo there are many acoustic "glows" happening at once. Even echoes, reflections glow.
And each sound is a mono sound. Not stereo. Yours ears are stereo. Nature is mono. I think that's why stereo always sounds fake, but enjoyable. Even 99.1 channels will have a problem.
Funny!I don't mind not pin pointing Eminem to be honest..
I have one Eminem CD and to be honest the production value is quite amazing. I use a track or two as a demo, even tho I don't care much for the CD.I've heard some single stereo mic recordings that were very beautiful and very realistic even on modest systems. I've never been able to record that well, tho. Knowing were to place the microphone is key.
Back to the Orion and Behringers for a moment !
This thread has certainly developed into a fairly complex discussion.
If anyone can take a break for a moment and get back to the two speakers , I have a question.
The Behringer 3031A is supposedly better sounding than the 2031A . So does this increase the 'better' rating for the NEW Behringers ( 3031A)?
I have not heard the 3031A but the 3030A sure has very nice mids and HF.
This thread has certainly developed into a fairly complex discussion.
If anyone can take a break for a moment and get back to the two speakers , I have a question.
The Behringer 3031A is supposedly better sounding than the 2031A . So does this increase the 'better' rating for the NEW Behringers ( 3031A)?
I have not heard the 3031A but the 3030A sure has very nice mids and HF.
Funny!
I've heard some single stereo mic recordings that were very beautiful and very realistic even on modest systems. I've never been able to record that well, tho. Knowing were to place the microphone is key.
Imaging is important , it gives the recording perspective, which is not necessary when present at a live performance .
Stereo doesnt sound fake , it sounds like stereo and we dont listen to live sound thru our stereos , we listen to recordings of live sound .....
Ashok,
I can't answer your question I haven't heard either speaker.
It appears we are of at least two and more likely at least three opinions about speakers and sound in the last two pages of responses. On the one hand we have the people who can not localize a sound either in a concert hall, or some concert halls and also with a set of speakers. Then we have those who can hear sounds coming from outside of a set of speakers to the left right or even behind themselves. Another can localize between left and right and center phantom images, and I would say there are still the adherents who would be happy with a mono recording and a single speaker who swear that they can hear depth and placement of different instruments in the mix with a single speaker playback. So there is no consensus in the least how sound should or does sound in this group. Every person has a different take on what they hear and what is possible in this group, there are no subjective answers that can satisfy this little group let alone the masses who listen to music. How can we possibly discuss design factors with such clarity and dogma with this wild subjectivism and personal bias while still believing in any acoustical analysis? I guess I am in the middle of the group, I do believe that at a concert with the right acoustics I could point at the guitar players speaker cabinet or the piano player with my eyes closed, but in a speaker system I think I can do fairly much the same with a panned left or right recording but I am not sure that height cues are not an expected result from the recording engineers part, I do not see the mechanism that any recording engineer could use to create that illusion on purpose with only a two channel recording playback system, it can only be a room or speaker and room aberration. And to say without a surround sound system an image is recorded to be behind me just could not be, that would have to be somehow totally a phantom image as where is the initial impulse response that I must have missed as the sound is flying around the room? Life is a B..ch and it seems discussing room acoustics and what to expect ain't much better. What is a speaker designer to do?
I can't answer your question I haven't heard either speaker.
It appears we are of at least two and more likely at least three opinions about speakers and sound in the last two pages of responses. On the one hand we have the people who can not localize a sound either in a concert hall, or some concert halls and also with a set of speakers. Then we have those who can hear sounds coming from outside of a set of speakers to the left right or even behind themselves. Another can localize between left and right and center phantom images, and I would say there are still the adherents who would be happy with a mono recording and a single speaker who swear that they can hear depth and placement of different instruments in the mix with a single speaker playback. So there is no consensus in the least how sound should or does sound in this group. Every person has a different take on what they hear and what is possible in this group, there are no subjective answers that can satisfy this little group let alone the masses who listen to music. How can we possibly discuss design factors with such clarity and dogma with this wild subjectivism and personal bias while still believing in any acoustical analysis? I guess I am in the middle of the group, I do believe that at a concert with the right acoustics I could point at the guitar players speaker cabinet or the piano player with my eyes closed, but in a speaker system I think I can do fairly much the same with a panned left or right recording but I am not sure that height cues are not an expected result from the recording engineers part, I do not see the mechanism that any recording engineer could use to create that illusion on purpose with only a two channel recording playback system, it can only be a room or speaker and room aberration. And to say without a surround sound system an image is recorded to be behind me just could not be, that would have to be somehow totally a phantom image as where is the initial impulse response that I must have missed as the sound is flying around the room? Life is a B..ch and it seems discussing room acoustics and what to expect ain't much better. What is a speaker designer to do?
I could swear it's on the right side
I don't remember, haven't listened to this in years, just absolutely hated the music. I remember the dog, though! The disc was given to me by an engineer in LA who was an early adopter of Q-Sound.
KHM - Don't forget that you're dealing with a group of oddballs here. My guess is that few of us here are the norm. Designing for and testing the general public would lead to different results. Stereo works well enough for most people, mainly because they don't care about much more. Surround sounds cool, and that sells. But most of the stuff we talk about? Very few care, or even know about it.
My guess is that few of us here are the norm. Designing for and testing the general public would lead to different results. Stereo works well enough for most people, mainly because they don't care about much more. Surround sounds cool, and that sells. But most of the stuff we talk about? Very few care, or even know about it.
depends.. IF the recording is simple, contains space cues and is reproducted with loudspeakers placed far from boundaries that illuminates the room fairly uniformely, you can get something if not real, more real..
Think about it, sound should come from the speaker, and from everywhere else, otherwise, reverb and space cues are also coming through the speakers, not the room, this is highly artificial. Maybe this is why dipole and omni fans listen primarly to music recorded in real spaces, because the room in that case is a carrier, not an offender. I still remember when I first listened to SL's demo disc. A revelation. People that have it will know what I mean.. If you take the room out of the equation and absorb, the effect vanishes, you fall back into "plain stereo". boring (for that type of recording, of course..)
I shall also print this paper, looks very interesting. And for people with active speakers, easy to do the test too! Very exciting stuff!
The waveguide of the 3031A is smaller so the directivity will be worse. Based on [0] (sorry german) there is no reason to believe that the ribbon will make up for that.
Regards
[0] https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...XalQTk&sig=AHIEtbTL3RyL7SyGmShqA4fbT5KEENIAww
I was wondering if anyone here wanted to do some testing. I could easily make some test tones. If we can figure out what's needed (that can evolve, if necessary) then I'm happy to make the tones and post them here. Or better yet, in a new thread.
Reflection,diffraction, panel radiation, and re-radiation from enclosures determine speaker's apparent source location. Phase relation of harmonics are modified in frequency dependent fashion for fixed listening position, and recombination for small shifts in head location also result in shifting of phase relationships.
This speaker performance results in wobble of elements in phantom image (auditory scene), both horizontally and vertically. Net result is reduction in angular resolution of image elements.
For a broadband transient representing the onset (attack) of a sound played as mono signal to stereo speakers results in perfectly centered phantom image. Shifting of the phantom image several degrees left/right requires timing shifts in the microseconds range. These shifts are effectively created by either amplitude panning, time delay, multiple microphone techniques, or various combinations.
Depth of mono source starts same distance behind speakers as listener distance from speakers. Total depth of image stage also scales with listener distance.
Regarding the Orion and it's imaging specificity, SL's own observations comparing it to his Pluto reveal more similarity than differences in phantom image presentation of dipole type speaker v omni type speaker.
If listening for recording detail such as sound of recording venue, or subtle reverberation, listening setup with increased direct to reflected sound is used. Otherwise these details become clouded with reverberant character of listening space.
Rudolf's posted IR is nice example; it shows strong reflection(s) at 0.125 ms and 0.4ms:
For comparison here is IR of my Pluto Clone:
And an overlay of the two IR:
This speaker performance results in wobble of elements in phantom image (auditory scene), both horizontally and vertically. Net result is reduction in angular resolution of image elements.
For a broadband transient representing the onset (attack) of a sound played as mono signal to stereo speakers results in perfectly centered phantom image. Shifting of the phantom image several degrees left/right requires timing shifts in the microseconds range. These shifts are effectively created by either amplitude panning, time delay, multiple microphone techniques, or various combinations.
Depth of mono source starts same distance behind speakers as listener distance from speakers. Total depth of image stage also scales with listener distance.
Regarding the Orion and it's imaging specificity, SL's own observations comparing it to his Pluto reveal more similarity than differences in phantom image presentation of dipole type speaker v omni type speaker.
If listening for recording detail such as sound of recording venue, or subtle reverberation, listening setup with increased direct to reflected sound is used. Otherwise these details become clouded with reverberant character of listening space.
Rudolf's posted IR is nice example; it shows strong reflection(s) at 0.125 ms and 0.4ms:
For comparison here is IR of my Pluto Clone:
And an overlay of the two IR:
this is not my experience, unless the room reverb is on the high side, and not homogeneous.
Nice comparison indeed. Thank you very much for taking the time do do it!
I had a hard time initially to get the time scale right in my mind. Rather unusual presentation to stop the ETC at 0.5 m into the room.
0.125 ms equals 4.25 cm - that is the averaged radius of my high- and midrange sound sources (B&G Neo 3 and Peerless HDS PPB 4-25/8). It's the time when the ring radiator formed by the outer dimensions of the drivers sets in (there is no baffle around them). I have no idea yet where I get the 0.4 ms energy from. But we are still very much in the dimensions of the speaker itself.
Do you have any idea why above point zero your response curve oscillates more than mine? Has it to do with measurement resolution?
Rudolf
As an audio engineer this conversation is pretty stimulating. However I think some are missing a key point here. We are taking signals picked up by a microphone set in a specific place. We try and capture as much of the hall as we can without diffusing the primary capture - which is the instruments themselves. Because of the spacing of those microphones, and arrival time of the individual instruments, you will get imaging in stereo and multichannel when played back through speakers.
No, you don't get imaging when you sit in the concert hall, but you are not listening to feeds from the microphones mixed down to stereo either.
No, you don't get imaging when you sit in the concert hall, but you are not listening to feeds from the microphones mixed down to stereo either.
Did ever anyone of your customers (or your boss, if applicable) ask you to get/produce the imaging of a concert when listened to with closed eyes?
Or asked another way: Was there ever someone who asked for the imaging to be more blurred in the final product?
I just want to know if this differentiation is ever an issue in the marketplace or solely discussed in the world of HiFi enthusiasts.
Rudolf