That's sort of what I'm driving at, can it be good enough without jiggery pokery or reflections?
Last edited:
I agree with Krivium on this.
My experience on playback was the the reverb of the recorded space is what gave it depth. Any recording of a large space had depth, even mono recordings. The up front sound is from close mics. A good example is some of the Sinatra recording with orchestra. The orchestra is behind, Frank is up front. Some recording I've have are distinctly layered, but I don't know what are the clues that make them sound that way. The VR guys probably know.
The old album "Belefonte at Carnegie Hall" has some astounding depth effects. On the last track "Matilda" there is a call and response between Belefonte and the singers on stage, then the orchestra, then the audience - going all the way to the very top tier balcony. Don't know how it was recorded, but on a system with real depth the sound goes back, and back as the response comes from people farther away in the audience. The delay all the way to the back is funny, and Belefonte comments on it. But the depth is startling to hear on a recordings. That's a reference track for me.
Thanks, I've seen those photos before, but didn't know where it was.
Very much like my lava cave, but the wood diffusion has more depth than the lava walls did. The advantage of the cave was NO parallel surfaces anywhere, and a chaotic surface. It was an acoustical dead space, called Hypoechoic. It did not have sense of envelopment, its only acoustic fault.
I listened to Frank and Belafonte's Matilda. For the moment I'm only going to comment on Matilda. The whole presentation beats you over the head with how artificial it is because Belafonte is constantly moving, and getting picked up to varying degrees by different mics. He apparently has his own mic that he uses sporadically, which has a reverb effect added to it. Of course the amount of apparent reverb changes with the different mic techniques, and the trio sounds distant from the mics recording them. However, when I think of a depth illusion, I'm looking for something that sounds completely authentic, as if no mics or speakers are involved at all: Just multiple performers at different distances right in front of me.
In general I like things pretty dry, and when I hear a mix of wet and dry, I typically lament that the more distant performers (with more reverb) weren't closer to their mics.
For example, these piano trios recorded by hyperion has some of the most authentic sounding soundstage (with width and depth) that I've heard:
https://www.hyperion-records.co.uk/dc.asp?dc=D_CDA67538
(My personal favorite tracks are 2,3,and 5).
Having said that, I'd rather have less reverb, and I'd rather have the more distant instrument(s) (trying not to give anything away here) mic'd closer.
I actually like a lot of soundtracks with their pan-pot soundstage and close mic techniques with limited reverb, even though they're not authentic. Still, if someone can point me to something that is more in-line with my expectations for depth, I'll certainly give a listen. I'd also like to hear other's comment on their perception of the piano trios.
Last edited:
Can you please explain why?
Does a baffle-less dipole have a different directivity than same driver on a large baffle in the same badwidth? I think so. Can we discuss this aspect in more detail?
This is a simple basic phenomenom, or actually two. Bafffle width and loudspeaker driver diameter both have effect on directivity. Both are fundamentally derivative also from frequency. Not worth adding to this discussion.
Two links worth reading
Home of the Edge
Dipolplus - Alles über offene Schallwände (in German, but also in English as pdf here)
No. Why are you still recommending simulator which does not support directivity simulation due to severe errors and difficulties to off-axis angles? It this just targeted provocation or something more serious?
Last edited:
I don't agree this is not worth adding to the discussion.
Maybe for the choice you made Juhazi (dipole subwoofer with narrow baffle) but for regular boxed speaker it is relevant as larger width box help to maintain directivity lower in frequency. The second paragrapgh is in par with my own experience as i listen to relatively 'big' speaker relative to today's standard (100l box 850*540*400 cm) and i m used to same kind of enclosure but with different speaker technology than mine (Tannoy S15 DMT2) and i had same feeling as DBMandrake:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/317122-baffle-diffraction-9.html#post5455223
As it help to control ER it is worth talking about in my view.
Last edited:
About that (baffle width and in wall that can be considered as infinite baffle) i know some engineer have preference about material the baffle is made of (not the box material in itself but the wall material that extend it).
I once had a discussion about that with a studio owner as i've spent a lot of time in T.Hidley's room from circa mid 70's early 80's design (not sure exactly when it was build because the monitors wasn't Westlake but Kinoshita's and i don't know when Hidley switched between them) where the front 'wall' was made of glass (between control room and studio) and the extended baffle made of brick (red material don't know translation for it...maybe adobe?).
The owner told me he had heard the latest Hidley design (NonEnvironnement which i had'nt heard) and that he switched to much harder stone material than the brick and he said he prefered the sound of it this way. Maybe this was related to other parameters but it may be of interest. He pointed too that wood could be even better in his view.
CharlieLaub pointed zero soundstage with his own experience with inwalls and i ask myself how it was implemented (did he try an LEDE approach where the front wall is absorbent?). If the frontwall was absorbent it may had been too much and effectively killed some important reflection? What was the kind of loudspeaker used?
I've only heard one LEDE controlroom and this was at a time where the studio owner changed and the new one decided to heavily modify the acoustic of the room so i don't know if it was still a real LEDE (some acoustic treatment was discarded -some scattering panels in front half of room i thoughts was Haas Kicker at the time which i discovered i was wrong in a discussion in here with Wesayso). The rendering was odd to me in this room, but i can't remember if i had the feeling there was a lack of depth...
I once had a discussion about that with a studio owner as i've spent a lot of time in T.Hidley's room from circa mid 70's early 80's design (not sure exactly when it was build because the monitors wasn't Westlake but Kinoshita's and i don't know when Hidley switched between them) where the front 'wall' was made of glass (between control room and studio) and the extended baffle made of brick (red material don't know translation for it...maybe adobe?).
The owner told me he had heard the latest Hidley design (NonEnvironnement which i had'nt heard) and that he switched to much harder stone material than the brick and he said he prefered the sound of it this way. Maybe this was related to other parameters but it may be of interest. He pointed too that wood could be even better in his view.
CharlieLaub pointed zero soundstage with his own experience with inwalls and i ask myself how it was implemented (did he try an LEDE approach where the front wall is absorbent?). If the frontwall was absorbent it may had been too much and effectively killed some important reflection? What was the kind of loudspeaker used?
I've only heard one LEDE controlroom and this was at a time where the studio owner changed and the new one decided to heavily modify the acoustic of the room so i don't know if it was still a real LEDE (some acoustic treatment was discarded -some scattering panels in front half of room i thoughts was Haas Kicker at the time which i discovered i was wrong in a discussion in here with Wesayso). The rendering was odd to me in this room, but i can't remember if i had the feeling there was a lack of depth...
Last edited:
OK, krivium, so yes this thread is about why in-wall and other types of loudspeakers sound different. The reason is simply because in-wall radiates only in 2pi space and thus awakens totally different kind of reflections, also in low frequencies.
Simply put so, but it seems to get really tricky when we go to details and add more variables like baffle diffraction, room dimensions/boundaries, absorption, diffusion, driver type/directivity profile, stereophony, binaural perception, sound processing in brains - to mention only few!
I am just a simple country boy with minimal understanding of mathematics and electronics. But the little boy inside me still wants to open up toys to see how they work!
Simply put so, but it seems to get really tricky when we go to details and add more variables like baffle diffraction, room dimensions/boundaries, absorption, diffusion, driver type/directivity profile, stereophony, binaural perception, sound processing in brains - to mention only few!
I am just a simple country boy with minimal understanding of mathematics and electronics. But the little boy inside me still wants to open up toys to see how they work!
Hi Juhazi,
Yes increasing entropy doesn t help to have definitive answer, but everything play a role (important or not so much) and it is interesting to have food for thought... and if definitive answer could exist this may be not as fun / interesting as it is.
At least i do think so but you may disagree.
About the subject i do believe the room/speaker/listener behave as one and only system and should be investigated as such.
So every face can or should be investigated. Probably not in one only thread but why not.
As long as it doesn t mutate in a flamewar between preference and ego... it is refreshing and of interest.
At least for me.
Oh and i m as you about knowledge: i think i have basic knowledge ( maybe on many fields but basic). This is a chance to have access to a place like here. There is so much experience and knowledge shared.
Yes increasing entropy doesn t help to have definitive answer, but everything play a role (important or not so much) and it is interesting to have food for thought... and if definitive answer could exist this may be not as fun / interesting as it is.
At least i do think so but you may disagree.
About the subject i do believe the room/speaker/listener behave as one and only system and should be investigated as such.
So every face can or should be investigated. Probably not in one only thread but why not.
As long as it doesn t mutate in a flamewar between preference and ego... it is refreshing and of interest.
At least for me.
Oh and i m as you about knowledge: i think i have basic knowledge ( maybe on many fields but basic). This is a chance to have access to a place like here. There is so much experience and knowledge shared.
Last edited:
As Linkwitz says, reflections are a fact of life, I would suggest you can fight them (a losing game) or use them to advantage, and I think this is a good course of action due to the inadequate (often synthetic) spatial information in many recordings. Some people suggest this isn't true to the recorded material, they're probably correct, so what?
Yes they are a fact of life and are usefull or we could not listen to music with loudspeakers.
Fighting them is not a loosing game: you don t try to kill them, just manage a way for them to be inobstrusive for our brain interpretation.
If this was a loosing game you would nt have acousticians! And acoustic is not just about playing back message through loudspeaker: room where music is played live is a huge field since what... antic greece, probably sooner even?
Sorry Scott but inadequate is not appropriate for reverb units and show a lack of understanding of the process of recording and what it is all about: create an illusion.
This is true even for the most simple process of recording an acoustic act in mono or stereo. A microphone does not react or product a sound as our ears/brain does. We are far more complicated in our capacity and sensibility than a microphone capsule.
That it hurts your feelings and or your thoughs i do understand, but inadequate no. It does work (reverberation) in a way you can t imagine. Up to the point that some processor are not used so much because "much too clean or real" ( at least for some music style.I ve had that feeling-shared by others too- about the Lexicon 960L or the Quantec units -even if you consider the early one from the 80's).
You talked about pre 70's jazz records, keep in mind that what was used as reverb processor in this days was most probably a plate reverb*. As it name implies this is a sheet of metal hanged in a frame with a piezzo/electric guitar mic on it! And it sound superb (and natural up to a point) and are still sought after... check for EMT 140 for example.
*or a less than hifi speaker firing into a room (or tank, or whatever create an interesting results) then rerecorded through a probably less than high quality microphone which feed a tube electronic recording chain all that fixed through a tape desk... hifi at it s pinnacle from a technical point of view, perfectly fine from an aesthetic pov.
Some interesting perspective on reverb and use of it:
The History of EMT and Reverb | Universal Audio
Fighting them is not a loosing game: you don t try to kill them, just manage a way for them to be inobstrusive for our brain interpretation.
If this was a loosing game you would nt have acousticians! And acoustic is not just about playing back message through loudspeaker: room where music is played live is a huge field since what... antic greece, probably sooner even?
Sorry Scott but inadequate is not appropriate for reverb units and show a lack of understanding of the process of recording and what it is all about: create an illusion.
This is true even for the most simple process of recording an acoustic act in mono or stereo. A microphone does not react or product a sound as our ears/brain does. We are far more complicated in our capacity and sensibility than a microphone capsule.
That it hurts your feelings and or your thoughs i do understand, but inadequate no. It does work (reverberation) in a way you can t imagine. Up to the point that some processor are not used so much because "much too clean or real" ( at least for some music style.I ve had that feeling-shared by others too- about the Lexicon 960L or the Quantec units -even if you consider the early one from the 80's).
You talked about pre 70's jazz records, keep in mind that what was used as reverb processor in this days was most probably a plate reverb*. As it name implies this is a sheet of metal hanged in a frame with a piezzo/electric guitar mic on it! And it sound superb (and natural up to a point) and are still sought after... check for EMT 140 for example.
*or a less than hifi speaker firing into a room (or tank, or whatever create an interesting results) then rerecorded through a probably less than high quality microphone which feed a tube electronic recording chain all that fixed through a tape desk... hifi at it s pinnacle from a technical point of view, perfectly fine from an aesthetic pov.
Some interesting perspective on reverb and use of it:
The History of EMT and Reverb | Universal Audio
Last edited:
Im surprised not a single response to this post.
I have played with the depth thing for decades on... stand mounted minis, large 2 and3 ways, large line sources dipoles, smallish dipoles, both dipoles in multi ways AND large and highly directional single driver panels...
In every situation above the thing that seemed ti impact depth the most was simply frequency response tailoring. Warm and rich gives the impression of more depth, farward and lean kills it.
Im sure there are all sorts of other things that can effect depth BUT in the above ,mentioned wide array of different speaker types I could most easily adjust depth with how the speaker was voiced.
Good thread with good info, thanks guys!
The subject of depth in the audio fascinates me and I have some 30 years of experience with trying to understand it. So I'll throw in my views and experience.
Depth is definitely in the recording - or not. Even mono recordings. Every system I've heard that had believable depth illustrated this. Some recordings are very deep, some stay right between the speakers, some are a mix of depths. Some speakers will place the image out in front. I wonder if the out in front is an artifact of the system, or in the recording.
The common thing I've observed about systems that had real depth is that the wall behind the speaker was far away, or non existent. I've never heard depth from any type of speakers that were close to the wall behind them. Yes, I've heard the speaker owners talk about "fantastic depth" but I didn't hear it. Some examples of situations where the depth illusion has worked for me are; in my lava cave where the wall was 30 ft behind the speakers. In a high end showroom where the Focal speakers were a good 15 feet from the wall, in a small theater where there was distance and heavy velour drapes behind the speakers, or in John's garage with the back of the speakers facing the driveway.
The garage door trick is one I've posted before. I visited my buddy John and went out to his garage to listen to some speakers, including the Manzanita.The garage door was open and Harry James was playing trumpet out in the driveway, about 20 feet beyond the speakers. Push a button and down comes the garage door. Now Harry and his trumpet are pushed right against the door. Depth gone, or at least limited to the barrier behind the speakers. Open the door and the image shifted back out to the driveway.
That's consistently been my experience with depth in audio playback. If the wall behind the speakers is close, I hear it and the illusion is ruined. The depth goes no farther back (for me) than the barrier behind the speaker. Perhaps very diffused reflections from behind the speaker could sustain the illusion, I've had some experience with that, but not enough.
As to the original question about in-wall, I don't know. Though I've heard a few in-wall systems, I can't remember anything about depth. Curious to know more!
i have found this to be very tru as well
Yep, I was the same for years. I wanted it dry for several reasons; I played in the band or orchestra so the immediacy of being in the music was my reference. Also I found that playback just didn't give me the feel or real space, reverberate recordings were just too messy, not clear. I wanted to hear the musicians right here, next to me.
But when the systems I listened to - especially the rooms - got better and better, my taste shifted. Now I prefer live recordings done in large spaces. When the space is well reproduced, it's a joy to hear. Then the experience becomes much more "You are Here" rather than "They are Here." The former is much harder to do, especially in domestic spaces.
Yes of course! And that's the fun of that track on a good system, you hear what's going on and because it's obvious you can dismiss it. I love it when the room and the system allow you to hear thru the recording enough to understand its faults and ignore them. Much like live. The various layers of depth in Matilda were not even audible to be until I had the cave system. Then I understood what was going on and was amazed by the differences in depth and space in that recording. It goes wayyyyy back, and you can hear that in the right acoustics.
Another reference for me is the Denon anechoic CD from the 80s. It should have no depth at all, and yet in the right acoustics it does. Not much, but there is some.
Would in wall speakers with no back reflections do the same? I don't know. If they can a least partially do that, it's worth the work IMO.
Thanks - I was beginning to wonder what was going on. So many times I've listened to audio system where someone will talk about the "massive depth" of what we are hearing, and I just think "I don't hear it. Stops right at the wall." What was I missing?
Glad to know I'm not the only one.
https://i1217.photobucket.com/albums/dd381/mitchatola/bandk.jpg
for in room.
outside:
http://hornplans.free.fr/courbe_ideale.gif
grey : D&B Audio
red : EV
blue : xover 120Hz LR 24dB/oct, Sub + 15dB overall.
Let the fun begin...
Last edited:
^krivium - You come from same planet as me, obviously!
A footnote: I am not able to hear depth in recordings. It is diffiucult even at live acoustic events, unless I open my eyes. Concert halls and clubs have terrible acousics and strange reflections and it is very tricky to get the best seat.
Listening to Linda Ronstadt - What's New original CD now - recommended for also others than simple country boys! With a sip of Famous Grouse, third day of my summer vacation...
:format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(90)/discogs-images/R-2346508-1341950964-1926.jpeg.jpg)
A footnote: I am not able to hear depth in recordings. It is diffiucult even at live acoustic events, unless I open my eyes. Concert halls and clubs have terrible acousics and strange reflections and it is very tricky to get the best seat.
Listening to Linda Ronstadt - What's New original CD now - recommended for also others than simple country boys! With a sip of Famous Grouse, third day of my summer vacation...
Last edited:
Hey, I know this album! I distinctly recall listening to it in the mid 1980s (!) (when I was a teenager mostly listening to Pink Floyd) and being very impressed with "straighten up and fly right" (or was it called "monkey and something or other"?). Linda Ronstadt really had some nice pipes! But I doubt that there are really any "acoustic cues" in this recording. It's not the kind of music that lends itself well to that type of thing, anyway.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.