But that doesn't mean I don't believe 'progress' is possible. I believe strongly in proper engineering. The only problem is no one has agreed on what the design goals should be because no one agrees on what type of electroacoustic transduction is the most 'accurate'.
I recently attended a seminar on acoutsic design of large halls, and one of the main points that had to be agreed upon before beginning the design process of a new hall, was, "what did people think sounded best". To figure that out, there had to be surveys of people taken, and consensus found. And as it turned out, when people were polled in a meaningful way, consensus was found. Hmmm....
I recently attended a seminar on acoutsic design of large halls, and one of the main points that had to be agreed upon before beginning the design process of a new hall, was, "what did people think sounded best". To figure that out, there had to be surveys of people taken, and consensus found. And as it turned out, when people were polled in a meaningful way, consensus was found. Hmmm....
for those of you without Toole's book to which Earl referred I thought his take on the situation could be boiled down to something like - there are currently no standards in recording or reproduction we can count on, but he hopes the movie industry will lead the way out of this conundrum and make this happen in the future. Stereo was invented for the movies after all and Toole is a big believer that we'll all have full 5.1 or 7.1 systems that meet minimum standards.
Personally I don't think music is ever going to get in line and dance to rules made by an engineer or anyone else, but that's just me. It's always ignored control. In Europe the church tried to outlaw the use of certain notes together at one point in time. We all know how well that worked.
Personally I don't think music is ever going to get in line and dance to rules made by an engineer or anyone else, but that's just me. It's always ignored control. In Europe the church tried to outlaw the use of certain notes together at one point in time. We all know how well that worked.
If a dipole radiates 4.8dB less power the dipole would have far more direct sound versus reverberant sound. In that case, the dipole should allow hearing more into the recordings. Should this be more "you are there" instead of "they are here", which is in contrary to the common perception of dipole being "they are here"?
The recording process is "art" right up through the mastering, its all subjective and should be. After that, however it a reproduction and not "art" - a supposed facsimily of the "art", i.e. Hi-Fi. When the reproduction is deemed to be subjective and available for personal subjective manipulation, it becomes part of the art, but it is then no longer a facsimily or Hi-Fi. I do not want to be part of the art, I want to reproduce as accurately as possible the original art. There is nothing subjective about it.
I do not want to be part of the art, I want to reproduce as accurately as possible the original art. There is nothing subjective about it.
But then we'd be all wearing hyper-resolving headphones (Stax, anyone?). After all they are the most linear by far, have none of the problems with room loading and resonances, have next to no distortion, are completely free from thermal compression and can reach ear damaging SPLs. What's on the record is what you hear, nothing less, nothing more.
But we want more, illusion (after all stereo is but an illusion). And so we get into subjective waters whether we like it or not ... How much of reverberant sound from the room do we want ? Which is good, and which is bad ("near" and "far" reflections) ? There are far too many people who prefer panels/dipoles to simply dismiss them. And there are far too many designers who definetely know what they are doing (Walker, Linkwitz, Sanders, Bloom, John K., list is quite long) who prefer dipoles too.
I'm afraid we can only talk about preferences, not outright rights and wrongs.
But then we'd be all wearing hyper-resolving headphones (Stax, anyone?). After all they are the most linear by far, have none of the problems with room loading and resonances, have next to no distortion, are completely free from thermal compression and can reach ear damaging SPLs. What's on the record is what you hear, nothing less, nothing more.
But we want more, illusion (after all stereo is but an illusion). And so we get into subjective waters whether we like it or not ... How much of reverberant sound from the room do we want ? Which is good, and which is bad ("near" and "far" reflections) ? There are far too many people who prefer panels/dipoles to simply dismiss them. And there are far too many designers who definetely know what they are doing (Walker, Linkwitz, Sanders, Bloom, John K., list is quite long) who prefer dipoles too.
I'm afraid we can only talk about preferences, not outright rights and wrongs.
Re: new thread?
Why don't you and Magnetar start your own anti-Geddes thread?
Oh wait, that's right, Magnetar was banned.
auplater said:Why not start a new thread titled
"Dipole OB's, such as the Orion, Suck, The True Way Is Oblate Spheroid Constant Directivity Foam Suppressed HOM Horn Boxes"
Seems to be what this thread is now about....
John L.
Why don't you and Magnetar start your own anti-Geddes thread?
Oh wait, that's right, Magnetar was banned.
I do agree with you Earl, it's the only logical way to go approach it. Try to get what's on the disc projected out into the room accurately, whatever that room might be. My point was simply that this is the goal, not hearing it like the engineer did. I don't think they are the same thing. I'm not buying any ns-10s or turning my living room into a faithful replica of abbey road studios just to listen to the Beatles.
Bratislav said:
This is a very enlighting thought. No I don't want a "headphone-accurate" reproduction. I want a system that provides me the *illusion* of performance. I hate to always look at what SL has to say but it seems the man is always right:
"The best one can hope for with 2-channel sound reproduction is the illusion of listening into the recording venue. Physics does not allow the accurate reproduction of the original sound field with only two speakers." - SL.
Seems like people chase different goals. Mine is this exact "illusion" and that's why dipole is the answer. Perhaps others chase "PRAT", "clarity", "transparency", "slam", "doof-doof" or whatever which is ok as well.
For the same SPL at the listening position (which translates to the same direct sound power), if dipole speakers radiate 4.8dB less power, of course the total reverberant power is 4.8dB less.
Yes there is sound from the back of the speakers bouncing off the back wall, but remember there are also nulls on the side of the speakers. So totalling up there is theoretically 4.8dB less reverberant sound power.
My point is, why in the case of more direct sound yet the perception is more "live" or "they are here" instead of "we are there"?
gedlee said:
Ideally - but there is no consensus as to how to 'objectively' reproduce sound. Peer review and a consensus of experts is necessary for anything to be considered "objectively true" - this is the basis for all legitimate sciences. This doesn't exist in our field.
While we each might think we know the truth, only until there is agreement, our convictions are only opinions. I hope for and support people working towards this.
cuibono said:
I'm not sure "we are there" vs. "they are here" is just about the ratio of direct to reverberant sound.
I find the recording has alot to do with "we are there" vs. "they are here". I'm with Earl, the speakers should try and produce what is in the recording. The listening enviroment can then add some extra coloration. I prefer listening in a lively room rather than a padded studio.
goskers said:
The pluto projects sound similiar to my dipoles allright, but they're missing those deep, clean, satisfying *dipole bass*. Additionally they're quite inneficient speakers and can't be driven hard. 5" vs 15" is no-contest
But if I can only have one speaker, or my wife told me to get rid of ugly big baffles, I will be very happy with a Pluto. Actually now that I'm thinking of the Plutos I want to hear them again!
Simply because it's not accurate reproduction. Every recording is mixed for loudspeaker playback (excluding dummy head recordings).
Why don't you guys step up to multichannel audio? It can deliver a much better illusions of "being there". And you get all the good attributes that stereophony can deliver on top of it.
Best, Markus
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.