markus76 said:
thanks for explanation
in that case I am not really interested in LEV undestood as "being surrounded by sound" as in real life at real musical events I am never "surrounded by sound"
music is rather played in front of the audience not around it
and the audience is typically not very live acoustically, rather absorptive
therefore I am (would be) perfectly satisfied with "front wall disappearing act" when the space opens up in front of me in all directions (3D)
as if my listening room was "attached" to the recording venue as a kind of "loge" in a theater
such experience I consider realistic and
"being surrounded by sound" I consider unrealistic - rather surrealistic artificial effect - from perspective of music reproduction because there is no comparable experience in real life of listening music live
who needs envelopment? I think that envelopment is unrealistic and unHiFi (if we understand "fidelity" in HiFi as a kind of realism - "fidelity to what is real")
best regards!
graaf
markus76 said:
yeah obviously
"being surrounded by sound" I took as "being surrounded by defined sound sources"
I agree that what IS real is certainly reverberation pattern, the reverberant field and the quality of it
but it is not necessary for realistic sound reproduction to experience the sound "coming from around" even in that sense
what about the "loge" analogy I have proposed?
can I hear acoustics of a concert hall from a loge perspective?
if yes than why not in a typical listening room? what is the difference?
on the other hand when You are seated in a typical concert hall in place of "the best sound" also in term of quality of the reverberant field You find Yourself in the middle of auditorium and sometimes even at the back of it
places where You never experience "audiophile imaging"
yet there is the best sound!
best regards!
graaf
ps.
if I misunderstood anything again please correct!
I REALLY appreciate Your kindness and patience towards me
ScottG said:
Scott
It is absurd to think that any speaker or setup is going to please everyone. I am very happy with the extremely high percentage of positive reviews and virtually no negative ones (except Lynn's issues with my amp - but I have an issue with his assement as it was not blind). One cannot get 100%, but I'll settle for 95%.
Where is the RMAF thread?
Hello,
Griesinger has some good info about envelopment
http://www.davidgriesinger.com/sfaes.pdf
- Elias
Griesinger has some good info about envelopment
http://www.davidgriesinger.com/sfaes.pdf
- Elias
poptart said:
I think that Floyd's data base here is limited to the few speaker designs in his tests. None were what I would consider the ideal and I would claim that inclusion of a "Summa-like" design approach may change the results to bring both sets of listeners together.
I completely agree with reflective side walls as well as highly damped front walls (behind the loudspeakers) - I have always said this - but I believe that one CAN reduce the first reflection while also maintaining side wall reflectance. This situation WAS NOT in any of the tests that Floyd mentioned formed the basis of his claims. This is the singular point of disagreement between Floyd and I and its one where I have experience and data and he does not. I would not claim my data to be scientifically sound, but I would claim it to be strongly relavent and worth considering.
I believe that my designs in properly done rooms will close the gap between sound engineers, musicians and the general public, because it gives us all what we are looking for.
I know Peters work, not personally an aquantance however.
But that IS the kind of realism intended by the composer. There's nothing that is more real.
Maybe Toole's definition is more clear: "LEV - a sense of being surrounded by a diffuse array of sound images that are not associated with partical sound locations."
The difference is the indirect sound field, i.e. frequency response pattern, level, direction and delay of reflections. I think I stated that a couple of hundred posts before...
Please try to get Tooles book. There's so much to know that can't be transferred in a forum.
markus76 said:
differences between a loge and a typical listening room in the place of the loge?
or just between to loges? bigger-smaller, less more live/dead acoustically (different couches, wall coverings etc.)?
to put it differently - does a change in the loge arrangement change perceived reverberant field of an opera theater?
markus76 said:
fortunately the results of scientific research are not copyrighted
You can transfer everything
just don't quote in extenso and don't copy-paste any drawings/schematics/diagrams
best regards!
graaf
Hello,
I must greatly _greatly_ wonder how one can possible isolate the effect of one component (amplifier) from the whole chain of components (recording+CD player+amplifier+loudspeaker+room etc.) by listening to the whole chain without knowledge of how each separate component affects the whole chain individually?
How is that possible? (I'm assuming it is done by listening only)
- Elias
gedlee said:
I must greatly _greatly_ wonder how one can possible isolate the effect of one component (amplifier) from the whole chain of components (recording+CD player+amplifier+loudspeaker+room etc.) by listening to the whole chain without knowledge of how each separate component affects the whole chain individually?
How is that possible? (I'm assuming it is done by listening only)
- Elias
Hello,
One interesting experience I've been having a while ago. Namely resently I was listening my ONE speaker as MONO for almost two years. Actually the situation that got me into it was a sum of coincidences, but to make a long story short after I build my first unit of dipole line array suddenly other part of life needed attention so at that time I didn't build another one So two years experience of ONE good dipole line array MONO sound experience for me. And it was interesting time and many things can be learned from that.
Some observations:
1) I can be in any part of the room and the sound does not change hardly at all.
2) I can be in whatever position facing towards the speaker, facing sideways or even my back to the speaker and the image remains stable
3) I can tilt my head at any direction, front-back or sideways, and the image remains stable
4) the image is allways stable and the perceived location is at the same direction as the speaker is located. However the perceived distance depends on the recording and usually is far behind the speaker.
5) I can hear the ambiance from the good recordings and it fills the room.
The dipole line array is a three way, with 2*12" bass in H frame <70Hz, 8*6.5" midranges 70Hz-1kHz and 1m long DIY magnetostat ribbon separated from the main panel >1kHz. All active.
The horisontal directivity (dipole) remains essentially constant from 20Hz to more than 10kHz. So I get very good lateral reflections for the full freq range.
Now later that I've build another one and compared the stereo performance to the mono I can say they sound different! But which one is more pleasing taken into account all the faults stereo has (stereo cannot do the points 1-4 above) is much more harder to say actually.
- Elias
One interesting experience I've been having a while ago. Namely resently I was listening my ONE speaker as MONO for almost two years. Actually the situation that got me into it was a sum of coincidences, but to make a long story short after I build my first unit of dipole line array suddenly other part of life needed attention so at that time I didn't build another one
So two years experience of ONE good dipole line array MONO sound experience for me. And it was interesting time and many things can be learned from that. Some observations:
1) I can be in any part of the room and the sound does not change hardly at all.
2) I can be in whatever position facing towards the speaker, facing sideways or even my back to the speaker and the image remains stable
3) I can tilt my head at any direction, front-back or sideways, and the image remains stable
4) the image is allways stable and the perceived location is at the same direction as the speaker is located. However the perceived distance depends on the recording and usually is far behind the speaker.
5) I can hear the ambiance from the good recordings and it fills the room.
The dipole line array is a three way, with 2*12" bass in H frame <70Hz, 8*6.5" midranges 70Hz-1kHz and 1m long DIY magnetostat ribbon separated from the main panel >1kHz. All active.
The horisontal directivity (dipole) remains essentially constant from 20Hz to more than 10kHz. So I get very good lateral reflections for the full freq range.
Now later that I've build another one and compared the stereo performance to the mono I can say they sound different! But which one is more pleasing taken into account all the faults stereo has (stereo cannot do the points 1-4 above) is much more harder to say actually.
- Elias
gedlee said:
I agree, BUT what is described in a negative fashion can sometimes be a point of further progression. Note that the issue of "depth" in one of the reviews directly corresponds with what I, Salas, midge0, and others have said. In this respect then I think that this is at least one area that needs further exploration. I also don't think that most of it necessarily requires an open baffle to achieve.
The RMAF 2008 thread is here:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=131174
Its really interesting that the majority seem to generally prefer "wider" high freq. dispersion designs, while one other (plus spouse) seems to prefer just the opposite.
As a side note: where I (and others) seem to be having problems with your replies are your statements that appear to be "100%":
i.e.
"..I've found a formula that works for me and *everyone* who has heard it.." (emphasis added.)
or,
"..I KNOW FOR A FACT that neither you nor anyone else exstolling the virtues of OB have heard the Summas."
Yeah, it is "picky" - BUT these examples are not at all the only examples available (in this thread alone). I'm guessing that this type of reply ("definitive") is your way of adding emphasis to your argument. The problem however is that it not only exposes you to unrelated arguments (thereby tending to shift the thread's focus.. response, counter response, etc.), but it also reads like "blunt-force adv.-copy". Just a suggestion then: consider a "95%" approach when presenting an argument.
markus76 said:
I believe he is looking for a very *uniform* condition of late arrival high freq.s with as much reduction in the midrange first reflection as possible from the "front" of the listener's wall (i.e. the wall behind the loudspeakers).
The comparatively late arrival *near average* higher freq. response effectively "sums" as far as "spectral balance" is concerned - to give a better impression of freq. "balance" (between high an low freq.s). At the same time it's late enough in time for most listener's to NOT perceive them as being detrimental to "image" specificity.
HOWEVER, with regard to image specificity:
Understand that with a design like the Nathan's that there is still substantial output that will interact with the side-walls to create "phantom speakers". However, under Earl's formula the output is much lower in level (at least at higher freq.s) - and so the interaction isn't as perceptually obvious (either in detriment or in benefit - depending on how you personally react to it).
Because of this interaction it is desirable to have side-wall reflections from the loudspeakers that are equal in distance (i.e. loudspeaker L is "2" feet from nearest side-wall as is loudspeaker R) - ****with the walls continuing parallel to at least just beyond the listener****. (..again, a fairly "uniform" condition.)
At least based on your initial rendering (under the Nathan set-up thread), you don't maintain that reflective uniformity. Worse still, you have a near-listener side-wall AND corner boundary, that again isn't uniform with the speaker's first side-wall reflection (..the "left one" relative to your position). In this respect then the "sound field" does not "build-up" correctly.
Of course he could have been proposing something else altogether..
(..after looking at your layout and the layout you did for Tubamark, I can think of at least one other suggestion that would give you even better results, BUT it may be even less practical for you.)
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.