I actually agree with you. My post was more a response to some recent posts along the lines that system replay is so far away from the real thing that it is becoming unbearable and unusable. Limitations, more or less, will always be there. Searching for the totally lifelike system is forever futile.. 
AuroraB,
Completely agree that some are so obsessed with trying to create reality that they are never satisfied and it is an endless quest for the impossible. I have been around professional musicians and singers for many years, you are correct that they don't care much at all about what they are listening to if it isn't atrocious sound.
Even in a live environment with live singers once they are mic'd and amplified it is obvious that this is the case, it is never going to sound like an opera singer in a great room with no amplification, it just never is.
So this hunt for what people call a live sound is a phantom reality, the only live sound is a live unamplified sound, anything else is a man-made sound, no way around that. Once you introduce a microphone into the equation all bets are off.
The best we can do is a very low distortion reproduction of what the recording engineer attempted to put down on whatever media they recorded to and listened to when they made the recording. Anything beyond that is just impossible, you can't make it better than the original recording.
Completely agree that some are so obsessed with trying to create reality that they are never satisfied and it is an endless quest for the impossible. I have been around professional musicians and singers for many years, you are correct that they don't care much at all about what they are listening to if it isn't atrocious sound.
Even in a live environment with live singers once they are mic'd and amplified it is obvious that this is the case, it is never going to sound like an opera singer in a great room with no amplification, it just never is.
So this hunt for what people call a live sound is a phantom reality, the only live sound is a live unamplified sound, anything else is a man-made sound, no way around that. Once you introduce a microphone into the equation all bets are off.
The best we can do is a very low distortion reproduction of what the recording engineer attempted to put down on whatever media they recorded to and listened to when they made the recording. Anything beyond that is just impossible, you can't make it better than the original recording.
Thanks for the links to Troels Gravesen's TQWT Mark II, TQWT Mark III, and the Open Baffle 11.
His impressions of the OB11 ...
Since the 16-ohm drivers are in parallel, they can have independent lowpass sections, which allows for a degree of room-tuning. As a starting point, the upper driver might have a 700 Hz LR2, and the lower driver a split-pole lowpass at 350 and 700 Hz (cascaded 1st-order at 350 and 700 Hz).
His impressions of the OB11 ...
reminds me of the Spatial loudspeakers I heard a few weeks ago. This gives further encouragement for a dual Altec/GPA 416 bass unit, with the upper driver in a wide curved open-baffle, and the lower driver in a 3.5~4 cubic foot (100~113L) closed-box with a matching front panel section.
Since the 16-ohm drivers are in parallel, they can have independent lowpass sections, which allows for a degree of room-tuning. As a starting point, the upper driver might have a 700 Hz LR2, and the lower driver a split-pole lowpass at 350 and 700 Hz (cascaded 1st-order at 350 and 700 Hz).
Last edited:
Think about this critically:
Then observe this phenomenon:
It is obvious to everyone that a painting is so far away from reality, but it doesn't stop people to enjoy the beauty of it. Should be similar with audio.
So, have you all ever thought that there MIGHT be something wrong with what we think is "high end" or "accurate" or "neutral"?
Many high end speakers have "discontinuity" in the crossover region, said Lynn. I don't know what discontinuity he's talking about, but in most speakers, midrange is missing in the crossover region, and at the same time none of the crossing drivers are capable of producing life-like dynamics at that region. We are not looking about flat on-axis response, rather off-axis power response. Soft domes are problematic usually.
DVD is interesting, because there is visual component (like live performance) for added enjoyment.
Then observe this phenomenon:
It is obvious to everyone that a painting is so far away from reality, but it doesn't stop people to enjoy the beauty of it. Should be similar with audio.
So, have you all ever thought that there MIGHT be something wrong with what we think is "high end" or "accurate" or "neutral"?
Many high end speakers have "discontinuity" in the crossover region, said Lynn. I don't know what discontinuity he's talking about, but in most speakers, midrange is missing in the crossover region, and at the same time none of the crossing drivers are capable of producing life-like dynamics at that region. We are not looking about flat on-axis response, rather off-axis power response. Soft domes are problematic usually.
DVD is interesting, because there is visual component (like live performance) for added enjoyment.
Some of the open baffle cult members will have you believe that the upper driver (in your hypothetical case) counts as double, too, since you could be hearing the radiation from both sides of the driver. I'm not buying into the whole deal that open baffle set-ups are superior because they sound "boxless". To me they sound lifeless; all I hear are "half notes".
I find open baffles all over the place sonically. Some sound thin and over-equalized with noticeably compressed dynamics, some sound vague and wooly, and some crisp and "fast" with snappy bass. A lot depends on baffle width, shape, driver types, equalization, and additional power demands on the amplifier.
I'm interested in tuning the ratio of closed-box (which is omnidirectional at low frequencies) to dipole (figure-of-eight) radiation. Boxes are known for interior standing waves in the troublesome 150~600 Hz region, while dipoles have problems with driver excursion below 150 Hz. Why not try combining the two (with similar-sounding drivers) with careful equalization for each section?
This approach provides an electronically controlled subjective balance of dipole vs closed-box sound. With switchable tapped inductors (or separate amplifiers), the balance can be set at the listening position. There's no "lock-in" to one type of sound or the other.
Last edited:
I have been thinking in the same line with Scott. I think this is a fact that reproduced music can never be the same with real one, so, we need the speaker enclosure to recreate the music. Imagine, what would a guitar/drum/violin sound without their boxy enclosure?
Strange you say this! That's what's sitting here in front of me
four 15's - two in BR two open baffle with a front loaded Tannoy 120 cycles up with no back chamber. The reflex box is tuned low to 30 cycles and I only use them to 50 - the BR and the open baffle use their own amps and electronic xover so 4 channels of bass amplification.
Last edited:
Strange you say this! That's what's sitting here in front of me
Good move, POOH. We all know there's a lot more to "getting the bass right" than a conventional Thiele/Small alignment with baffle-step compensation (BSC).
In one corner alone, there are seven reflected images (counting the 1st and 2nd bounce) along with the direct sound from the speaker. As frequencies go lower and wavelengths get longer, the phase relationships between the seven reflections and the direct sound gradually approach in-phase, which is the source of the VLF "room lift" we all experience.
In the 80 Hz and higher region, the phase relations get scrambled, and response ripples with deep nulls and peaks dominate, thanks to sum-and-difference interference between the reflections and the direct sound. That's where a modest amount of LF directivity comes in handy ... at least then each reflection doesn't have an equal amount of energy going into it, and the cancellation nulls aren't as deep. (If you do a vector analysis, it only takes a dB or two of gain mismatch to greatly decrease a cancellation null ... and that's just what a little directivity does.)
Since the phase angles between each of the seven reflections and the direct sound are going to be different for every room (and most likely different for Left and Right speakers in the same room), tunability in the LF range seems like a good idea. The LF radiation pattern doesn't need to be a perfect dipole or cardioid, just something with some directivity so the near-wall reflections no longer match and cancel each other.
Last edited:
From the text, you'd think so. But it worked just fine in stereo. I suppose the center image is dual mono, so it works. With this in place there was no change in tonality as a sound or voice was panned across from one side to the other. Especially noticeable with voice.
What I never did was the bandwidth limiting of the shuffler. Could be worth playing around with. The only bad effect it had was to pitch the overall tonal balance up a bit thus matching the solo left or right. Room EQ target would need to be adjusted slightly to fix that.
Thanks. I get what you say, however I'm not going to spend my last money on something that will only ease my frustration a little bit – something which eventually will not be used at all, since I'll still be frustrated.
Indeed. In my case, at certain point I couldn't live with the 'canned music' anymore.
Funny though, that a fairly large number of performing musicians live with rather mediocre systems, accepting the imitations as they are. They obviousy have another reference than HiFi geeks....
I dated a female conductor some time ago. She listened to music via her laptop's internal speakers. She was interested only in the music itself, not at all in its' sonic reproduction.
So musicians aren't necessarily representatives of what 'audiophiles' are after.
…
Limitations, more or less, will always be there. Searching for the totally lifelike system is forever futile..
All of you are correct, yet you may have missed the point that something changed in my experience recently.
"Orchestral work … still can be very good" – indeed, however compared to 'common concert hall acoustics' the gap was bearable by me. Compared to 'exceptionally superb concert hall acoustics' the gap became unbearable.
Yes, this is very personal thing, yet, for me, it's very real – it is my reality.
At times there may be a difference between 'should be' and between 'what is actually there' (the experience).
Please have a look at the construction of my speakers. Should you do it, you may realize that what you wrote here isn't applicable to them.
What I miss is the audible experience, not the visual one. When in concerts, most of the time my eyes are closed.
-------------------
I wonder if anyone actually got the experience I shared here, what was changed when concert hall's acoustics changed.
One can get an experience shared by another only upon having a similar past experience.
I let it be.
150-600 power range
It was once suggested to me that if 300Hz was the center of all power, then it would follow that an octave below and above this would encompass the all important power range. What works best in my mind is to horn load this range.
The sonic signature and directiveness would then more closely match if a horn is also used above this, for the mid range/and/or the entire rest of the range. The enclosure for the 150-600hz range would be relatively small, and internal baffles could be incorporated to seriously reduce/eliminate standing waves. Now, how to match the bass and subwoofer range below this, would then become the subject of great debate.
It was once suggested to me that if 300Hz was the center of all power, then it would follow that an octave below and above this would encompass the all important power range. What works best in my mind is to horn load this range.
The sonic signature and directiveness would then more closely match if a horn is also used above this, for the mid range/and/or the entire rest of the range. The enclosure for the 150-600hz range would be relatively small, and internal baffles could be incorporated to seriously reduce/eliminate standing waves. Now, how to match the bass and subwoofer range below this, would then become the subject of great debate.
Last edited:
Thanks for the reads.
At work, noise comes in through a pair of 1973 Pioneer full range stacked in the corner above head height. After lunch I decided to turn it up a little and sat down for a cig, when S & G came on the box.
So I was conscious of what to expect but I was hearing it like I haven't for a while. Reminded me of a system I had in the 80's.. but I was hearing it that way too.
I'm looking to increase loading in that range while opening into the room. I haven't heard the slot loaded woofers yet.
Attachments
I think I understand. The more experience we have with listening to the real thing, the less interested we are in a not-so-good sound.
Orchestra/opera is hard to reproduce. The hall size is just too big. The better the acoustics of the hall, the more impossible the reproduced sound to come close.
But don't forget my message, that it is just like eating tender loin in a 5-star restaurant. No doubt it is very good and tasty, but should we still be able to enjoy a cheap meat cooked by wife at home? That's the question. No matter how expensive my system, no matter how theoretically correct, if I don't enjoy it, it is not good enough. Many people will tell you that price has nothing to do with quality.
IIRC, the speakers used it's enclosure to generate sound ala boxed instruments. It is possible that the more complex the speaker, the more chance to go wrong.
I do hope you can dig up the convolution you used for your test. I'd be happy to try it or at least look into it.
wrong... i suspect you do not know what you are talking about...
get yourself a pair of vintage alnico 8" radio speakers (paper or cloth surround)
connect them straight to your amp (no box, no baffle, co crossover)
and enjoy some guitar music on slightly high volume
you will find out that all the timbre of a guitar is there (only missing some air due to lack of HF)
the instrument already has a cavity.... you do not need a cavity to reproduce it...
the cavity of the instrument gives it its tonality.... your speaker enclosure adds its own coloration on top of that...
remember that the acoustic instrument enclosure is just an amplification device... electroguitars or electroviolins play perfectly fine without the boxy enclosure...
Last edited:
Although I have already spoken here, but before I had built TQWT, I tested the OBL-15. Drum solos on this thing were really spectacular (of course not identical to reality - need at least far more treble content to emulate an real complete drum set, but it was rather good fun) ... For remark: This OB project failed in my room because my space is too small for a OB system, less than 3 meters wall-wall in listening position (yes, now I confess the error origin, the short distance plays havoc in OB ).