I did not say does not, I said the direct sound from the speakers will dominate what we hear. When you have 10 speakers firing at your head simultaneously, they will dominate what you hear in room. The direct to reflect energy is shifted more to direct. With just two speakers in a room, the direct to reflect ratio shifts to more reflect than direct(except at very high frequencies).
That is how Dr. Toole explained it.
Yes. Except that, many people refuse to acknowledge that it can happen, parading all sorts of acoustic theory about the "impossibility" of such things.
Yes, very hard to do, but in my case not all related to room or speakers.
The good news, again, is that one doesn't need ultra high end, very expensive gear to do it; the right type of optimising strategies on highly conventional audio components can also achieve it ...
Frank
Soundtrackmixer,
I can agree to that distinction between multiple and a single pair of speakers in the room. I just wouldn't want someone to think that the reflected sound just become inconsequential to the sound of the room, though it is being over powered by the direct sounds, they are still additive to the sound field.
I can agree to that distinction between multiple and a single pair of speakers in the room. I just wouldn't want someone to think that the reflected sound just become inconsequential to the sound of the room, though it is being over powered by the direct sounds, they are still additive to the sound field.
1. Speakers with very narrow baffles, containing a (small) wideband driver (plus sub).
2. Cabinets pulled several feet from side walls, with a bit of toe-in (not much).
3. Sit a few feet (or less) from the speakers for holographic sweet spot. Listener ends up being closer to the speakers than to any boundary (including the floor).
Just one person's experience!
Actually, no - which makes the rest of the post somewhat beside the point.
My room and speakers barely do it (IMO), I'm talking about bigger rooms and better speakers.
The argument will go nowhere because we are not talking about the same thing. I'm talking about an illusion, as are a number of other in this thread. The whole thing is an illusion. Hearing a voice or a cello or guitar out of a sound system is an illusion. Stereo is an illusion, 7 channel surround is an illusion. But they work. We don't really hear those instruments, we hear speakers - but the illusion makes it sound like we hear instruments. We don't hear the actual hall, but the illusion can make us believe that we hear it.
Of course it's not exactly the same thing as it was in the recording venue (if it even existed), but that doesn't matter much. What matters is the illusion that the walls drop away, that you are transported to another sonic space. Stereo can do that. It may be easier to do it with multi-channel, at least I've found it so, but it does not have to be multi-channel. A very good stereo system can sound so convincing that you forget there are no clues coming from the side or back, they become unimportant. The strength of the illusion created by good stereo is strong enough to fool us into believing that the room has disappeared.
That is something I find thrilling and somewhat magical, to sit in the same chair and be transported from space to space and place to place. And when done on a large scale, there is enough "sweet spot" for dozens of listeners. No head in a vice.
In that big directivity thread, speaker dave (who is conspicuously missing from action here) led us through a great discussion about direct to reflected ratio. A bunch of us ran a test where pink noise was played with both speakers in phase and then out of phase. We were looking for how much reduction we could get between the in phase and out of phase measurement. As I understand it, the out of phase measurement is the reverberant field spectrum. Here's a post where speaker dave explained what we are looking for: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...-pattern-stereo-speakers-159.html#post2737792
I remember that Pano's was the widest difference, about 10-15db across the entire frequency range. Took a bit of searching, but here is the post: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...-pattern-stereo-speakers-160.html#post2738148
I remember that Pano's was the widest difference, about 10-15db across the entire frequency range. Took a bit of searching, but here is the post: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...-pattern-stereo-speakers-160.html#post2738148
I know they are single person formats, multichannel is better for several people, yes.
Pano - I was under the impression that you had the best speakers that it was possible to make. You certainly have never ackowledged that there are any better.
Soundtrackmixer,
What do you think about trying this?
"Most people already have a 5.1 or 7.1 system right?
Well, I suggest recording engineers should record each member of a band in there own sound proof room and mix them for dolby digital or dts.
Then we set all of our speakers up in the front of the room.
That way each musician will have a separate speaker.
This way we won't have to worry about room treatments.
The band will always sound as if they are in your room.
Presto!
Of course this will only work for small ensambles.
And its always they are hear, never you are there."
What do you think about trying this?
"Most people already have a 5.1 or 7.1 system right?
Well, I suggest recording engineers should record each member of a band in there own sound proof room and mix them for dolby digital or dts.
Then we set all of our speakers up in the front of the room.
That way each musician will have a separate speaker.
This way we won't have to worry about room treatments.
The band will always sound as if they are in your room.
Presto!
Of course this will only work for small ensambles.
And its always they are hear, never you are there."
Earl, I know that's a jab, but I take it good humor. I do like my speakers.
A jab right back at you: You have not been paying attention.
Over the years I certainly have acknowledged speakers I think are better than mine. I've even provided links and photos. I'm not embarrassed.
The modified Altec A5 is my favorite speaker, but I haven't ever claimed that mine are the best example. And just because they are my favorites, does not mean they are the best in the world. Don't remember ever saying that.
I've done that several times and it works better than you might think.
Of course you sometimes need a lot of speakers.
The main problem is (I think) that saxophones, pianos, drums, etc, do not radiate in the same pattern as speakers. So the power response, if you will, is not the same at all. I was always tempted to add reverb just to fill things out a bit. It never sounded great that dry and separate.
Back in the 1980s Dennon made an anechoic recording of a symphony orchestra. It is very peculiar sounding. It does not work at all well in a typical room. I've never had the chance to play it back in a symphony hall, but I'd love to hear what that sounds like.
Could you expand on that a bit . . . I'm not seeing the logic of it. Clearly each additional speaker adds more "direct" sound, but it adds "reflected" sound as well, and possibly more (relative to direct) since multiple speaker installations typically place all the speakers closer to the walls. Just how is it that more speakers increases the direct-to-reflected ratio?
A lot of people will be able to get a lot further if they remove themselves from the 'vice' of believing it's all about the speakers. The truth is, it's all about the system, from the moment the mains power enters the boxes, to the final acoustic transducer ...
Frank
There would have to be a recording that placed each musician in their own speaker, or it would not work. Also, they would have to be omni speakers.
This approach will negate the need for room treatments....also there would be no crosstalk issues. It would be as if the musicians are inthe room.
Each speaker has a direct to reflected ratio at the listening position. The sound does not become more direct. Superposition holds.
Surely Toole's explanation is more detailed than this?
Melo,
That sounds interesting in itself but your premise that an omni speaker actually would work is not in itself true either. To say that all instruments create a simple equal sound in all directions is again to simple. An acoustic guitar held against the body wouldn't radiate that way and the sound board and sound hole would project more forward than back, a horn player is very direct sound out of the front of the horn than being omni, the vocals from a singer again are more directional than that and we can hear when someone is singing at rather than away from us. So you would need a speaker that would radiate the same as the real instrument, not a simple directional or omni source. Each speaker would have to have a steerable radiation pattern.
That sounds interesting in itself but your premise that an omni speaker actually would work is not in itself true either. To say that all instruments create a simple equal sound in all directions is again to simple. An acoustic guitar held against the body wouldn't radiate that way and the sound board and sound hole would project more forward than back, a horn player is very direct sound out of the front of the horn than being omni, the vocals from a singer again are more directional than that and we can hear when someone is singing at rather than away from us. So you would need a speaker that would radiate the same as the real instrument, not a simple directional or omni source. Each speaker would have to have a steerable radiation pattern.
Sound reproduction is all about the speakers. Rest of signal chain is electronics, with available linearity several orders magnitude greater than any speaker.
Signal flow to speaker is one dimensional, speaker is three dimensional.
Barleywater,
You can never win that argument with fas42, he always throws that comment in wherever he goes that it is the electronics making the real difference or the system. The oft said comment that when the electronics are perfect that even a mediocre set of speakers will sound fantastic is his creed. I find that statement incredible each and every time I hear it, that you can make a crude speaker system sound great with any electronics just doesn't align with what I have ever heard. To me a middle of the road speaker can never sound better than it does, no amount of electronic finesse ever can correct for a poor frequency response or pattern control, you just can't get there from here. But a great sounding speaker can sound fairly incredible even with mediocre electronics some times, the real magic these days is on the speaker side, electronics even in most consumer electronics can convey the music with great speakers. Sorry Frank, but I have to keep disagreeing with you each time you make that statement.
You can never win that argument with fas42, he always throws that comment in wherever he goes that it is the electronics making the real difference or the system. The oft said comment that when the electronics are perfect that even a mediocre set of speakers will sound fantastic is his creed. I find that statement incredible each and every time I hear it, that you can make a crude speaker system sound great with any electronics just doesn't align with what I have ever heard. To me a middle of the road speaker can never sound better than it does, no amount of electronic finesse ever can correct for a poor frequency response or pattern control, you just can't get there from here. But a great sounding speaker can sound fairly incredible even with mediocre electronics some times, the real magic these days is on the speaker side, electronics even in most consumer electronics can convey the music with great speakers. Sorry Frank, but I have to keep disagreeing with you each time you make that statement.