Well, If I can add my humble 2c to the quarrel..
the fuzzy picture Markus posted is actually fairly right, BUT, as Dewhard said, this is exactly what we want to achieve, especially for well made, simple recordings in true acoustic spaces which is mostly what I listen to.
Now, I do find that for some specific recordings, dipoles do blur things a little, for ex sound effects and such. I found a way to get the "truth" back with portable absorbing pannels to kill the rear wave somewhat. So I get best of both worlds and I am a happy camper.
I really think the only way to get a "perfect" system for every recording is a variable acoustic room, for any type of speaker radiation.. If I had a dedicated room, that's what I would go for.
the fuzzy picture Markus posted is actually fairly right, BUT, as Dewhard said, this is exactly what we want to achieve, especially for well made, simple recordings in true acoustic spaces which is mostly what I listen to.
Now, I do find that for some specific recordings, dipoles do blur things a little, for ex sound effects and such. I found a way to get the "truth" back with portable absorbing pannels to kill the rear wave somewhat. So I get best of both worlds and I am a happy camper.
I really think the only way to get a "perfect" system for every recording is a variable acoustic room, for any type of speaker radiation.. If I had a dedicated room, that's what I would go for.
it seems you are advocating for a tight radiation for front speakers, rather dead room, and ambiance speakers to compensate. Basically a "Toole" HT setup..?
I am glad we agree! One also has to remember that there must be one acoustic black hole somewhere, front or rear wall, and that's a matter of taste!
Last edited:
That's where I disagree. It might be true for some aural spaces that we want to reproduce but not for all of them. The recording should control the spatial attributes, not the speaker. If this is not feasible the user should be able to control those attributes. Speakers with a specific radiation pattern are one way to do this but there is no "more/less/different spatial attributes" knob (and currently I don't believe it's feasible to make such a speaker). Given the wide variety of recording techniques and use cases such a knob is needed.
Not to "compensate" but to "enable" realism in a controllable manner.
But yes, that's what I'm currently looking at, on-wall, very narrow dispersion as low as possible with additional ambience speakers.
Most of "you kids"
are probably too young to remember when all the good pre-amps had switches to select for the various phono equalization curves (the "RIAA standard" actually did "standardize" something). We're in a similar situation now with the "imaging" effects of various microphone placements and mixing philosophies . . . and it's made worse because there's often no way even to figure out what the recording engineer (or producer) was trying for. Movie sound tracks at least have 5.1 and some "industry standards" (which don't work all that well for "classical" music) . . . but in the music recording world (and we are ultimately responding to those sources) there's no way to know.I don't much care about some idealized ambiquadrasupraphonic recording/reproduction scheme that anyone thinks we ought to have . . . I want the speakers that do best with a majority of the recordings that I have or can readily (and want to) buy. So far, for what I listen to, dipoles and omnis do it best . . . and the more uniformly dipole or omni they are the better they seem to sound. At least that is an attainable goal . . .
Yes, let's synthesize and push through additional speakers the same signal that the reflected dipole back wave gives us for free . . .
Yes, let's synthesize and push through additional speakers the same signal that the reflected dipole back wave gives us for free . . .
Difference is that one can control direction, level, time, spectrum. We do have those tools now
Yes, let's synthesize and push through additional speakers the same signal that the reflected dipole back wave gives us for free . . .
I have to agree with Markus on this one.. stage width has nothing to do with envelopment and unless you got a huge room, you won't get much of it without active help.
But unless you're in an anechoic chamber you still can't control the listening room . . . whatever you add is still layered on top of that. And it's . . . well . . . completely synthetic.Difference is that one can control direction, level, time, spectrum. We do have those tools now
I suppose that one day we will also have the completely synthetic orchestra and vocalists as well, and you will be able to "dial in" whatever performance you want (let's try Streisand singing Verdi backed by The Who at La Scala). Fortunately I'll be long gone (and glad of it) . . .
interesting discussion..
I skipped from page 2 to 15, and it still seems like the same thing, lol..
anyway, I have this to, er... add:
my auditory memory of live music consists of people playing music in a room, where they are situated in the back of the room, playing into the room. This is normal to me, the sound sources create a zone of reverberation that naturally decays and that signature is depth-oriented in time and space.
now, you get a good panning of width with your average box speakers, they distribute the stage across, and if they are far enough into the room, convey *some* of the depth.
this is euphony with great dynamics, and little box coloration but... you still have less "magic" due to the rear-ward signature being muted.
dipole/omni gives you that extra representative sample, and where you place them in the room helps give you an approximation of that auditory memory, or "scene" Linkwitz likes to call it, that exists with people playing in the room, not out of the back wall.
remove the back wall, or sit in an acoustically dead rear wave presentation, and imaging to the sides becomes more distinct, which increases the spacial width (probably because Haas effects occur laterally as well as back to front) but realism suffers due to the auditory scene being displaced in time.
now, that 6ms minimum begins to make more sense, because the speaker is controlling the reverberation field, and moving the speakers into the room also approximates where the band, or people associated with making the music, are oriented in acoustical memory, in time and space.
push the speakers toward the back of the room, and you collapse the depth. Pull them too far into the room, and you no longer have an acoustic representation of auditory memory, unless you happen to always listen to music from within the sound source, (band members, apply here); I believe that a lot of discordant opinions hinge on where you put yourself in the audience, without realizing it. People that have to be front row, might like a dead room with horns a la Geddes, people that prefer 10 rows back, take in the room more and may prefer the dipole/omni's addition to the space, and I think the difference comes naturally as we age.
We put ourselves into the middle of things at the beginning of our time in aural educative circumstance, as if we ourselves should be there, in their places.... and as we grow older we tend to move towards an appreciation for what others are doing, and move back and let them do it, which puts us into the audience and into the room.
so, psychology, then, haha....
sorry, I just had to fit this thought in here, mean no disrespect....
I skipped from page 2 to 15, and it still seems like the same thing, lol..
anyway, I have this to, er... add:
my auditory memory of live music consists of people playing music in a room, where they are situated in the back of the room, playing into the room. This is normal to me, the sound sources create a zone of reverberation that naturally decays and that signature is depth-oriented in time and space.
now, you get a good panning of width with your average box speakers, they distribute the stage across, and if they are far enough into the room, convey *some* of the depth.
this is euphony with great dynamics, and little box coloration but... you still have less "magic" due to the rear-ward signature being muted.
dipole/omni gives you that extra representative sample, and where you place them in the room helps give you an approximation of that auditory memory, or "scene" Linkwitz likes to call it, that exists with people playing in the room, not out of the back wall.
remove the back wall, or sit in an acoustically dead rear wave presentation, and imaging to the sides becomes more distinct, which increases the spacial width (probably because Haas effects occur laterally as well as back to front) but realism suffers due to the auditory scene being displaced in time.
now, that 6ms minimum begins to make more sense, because the speaker is controlling the reverberation field, and moving the speakers into the room also approximates where the band, or people associated with making the music, are oriented in acoustical memory, in time and space.
push the speakers toward the back of the room, and you collapse the depth. Pull them too far into the room, and you no longer have an acoustic representation of auditory memory, unless you happen to always listen to music from within the sound source, (band members, apply here); I believe that a lot of discordant opinions hinge on where you put yourself in the audience, without realizing it. People that have to be front row, might like a dead room with horns a la Geddes, people that prefer 10 rows back, take in the room more and may prefer the dipole/omni's addition to the space, and I think the difference comes naturally as we age.
We put ourselves into the middle of things at the beginning of our time in aural educative circumstance, as if we ourselves should be there, in their places.... and as we grow older we tend to move towards an appreciation for what others are doing, and move back and let them do it, which puts us into the audience and into the room.
so, psychology, then, haha....
sorry, I just had to fit this thought in here, mean no disrespect....