Konnichiwa,
I have these as well and they are rather good, if also a little compromised (anything limited to sensible size/cost will be).
Thread about Prometheus and Supravox Open Baffles
My "normal" open baffles with the Bicone Signature Supravoxes tend to be a little more coherent and with a slightly more accurate tonality, but Prometheus counter with superior dynamic range and bandwidth. It in only once you move up to C37 laquered and modified Supravox fieldcoil drivers that the Prometheus is definitly outclassed, but even than not by THAT MUCH.
Sayonara
loudandclear said:
I have these as well and they are rather good, if also a little compromised (anything limited to sensible size/cost will be).
Thread about Prometheus and Supravox Open Baffles
My "normal" open baffles with the Bicone Signature Supravoxes tend to be a little more coherent and with a slightly more accurate tonality, but Prometheus counter with superior dynamic range and bandwidth. It in only once you move up to C37 laquered and modified Supravox fieldcoil drivers that the Prometheus is definitly outclassed, but even than not by THAT MUCH.
Sayonara
Konnichiwa,
You call that lunacy? I'd say it is only mildly disturbing. Now proper, pukka pie lunacy looks like this:
Dick Burwens 20KW Home Audio system, all hornloaded....
Oh, in case someone does not know, Dick was the Mentor of Mark Levinson (the man Mark Levinson, currently under the Red Rose banner, previously Cello and Mark Levinson Audio Systems)....
20,000 Watt Home Hi-Fi System - <[url]http://scrounge.org/speak/burwen/>[/URL]
Sayonara
EFHeath said:
You call that lunacy? I'd say it is only mildly disturbing. Now proper, pukka pie lunacy looks like this:
Dick Burwens 20KW Home Audio system, all hornloaded....
Oh, in case someone does not know, Dick was the Mentor of Mark Levinson (the man Mark Levinson, currently under the Red Rose banner, previously Cello and Mark Levinson Audio Systems)....
20,000 Watt Home Hi-Fi System - <[url]http://scrounge.org/speak/burwen/>[/URL]
Sayonara
The Fostex FW800N is not the best woofer to achieve my 8 Hz goal, even if it's probably the biggest woofer in production.
The Fs is good at 18 Hz, but Xmax at 2,3 mm is not good.
For the price of one FW800N, I can get several Ascendant Audio Avalanche 18" subwoofer drivers with 27mm Xmax, 16 Hz Fs, better displacement than a Tumult, lower Fs than a Tumult and a Fostex FW800N, lower price than a Tumult.
http://www.ascendantaudio.com/Products.htm
But then, to really achieve my goal, I guess that only the Parthenon is a valid option.
The Fs is good at 18 Hz, but Xmax at 2,3 mm is not good.
For the price of one FW800N, I can get several Ascendant Audio Avalanche 18" subwoofer drivers with 27mm Xmax, 16 Hz Fs, better displacement than a Tumult, lower Fs than a Tumult and a Fostex FW800N, lower price than a Tumult.
http://www.ascendantaudio.com/Products.htm
But then, to really achieve my goal, I guess that only the Parthenon is a valid option.
Good reading KYW.
Although, believe it or not, I am not sure I am satisfied with your conclusions. As I struggle to slowly learn how to design my own speaker at my snail's pace of intermittent dabbling, I personally get more frustrated with dynamics than anything else. Not knowing enough theory or practice to distinguish time coherence from phase shift or know if there is, I wonder if your mention of coaxial solutions is too superficial? Does the application of active crossover and coaxial placement actually cure the issue of dynamic response or is it still muddy in the crossover region?
And to really play devil's advocate and to address this to a larger group, does the unwaivering recommendation of yourself and the other gurus to go wide range drivers/big sensitivity come purely from your classical/jazz-music-tastes/tube-gear and are you guys just making us build speakers that shove that nasty crossover region right where that Motley Crue bass/drumline sits to pi$$ us off? (Yes that was a joke
)
Although, believe it or not, I am not sure I am satisfied with your conclusions. As I struggle to slowly learn how to design my own speaker at my snail's pace of intermittent dabbling, I personally get more frustrated with dynamics than anything else. Not knowing enough theory or practice to distinguish time coherence from phase shift or know if there is, I wonder if your mention of coaxial solutions is too superficial? Does the application of active crossover and coaxial placement actually cure the issue of dynamic response or is it still muddy in the crossover region?
And to really play devil's advocate and to address this to a larger group, does the unwaivering recommendation of yourself and the other gurus to go wide range drivers/big sensitivity come purely from your classical/jazz-music-tastes/tube-gear and are you guys just making us build speakers that shove that nasty crossover region right where that Motley Crue bass/drumline sits to pi$$ us off? (Yes that was a joke
)
Konnichiwa,
Maybe, maybe not. There are few possible coaxial solutions that did work right (chiefly the Eckmiller) and if you use a modern Digital X-Over with the option to "time align" the non-coincident sources things may get better sill.
Not really. I do listen to a lot of stuff besides classical/jazz. And with all due respect, when I pull some of my classical warhorses out (try the Ravel version of the "Pictures" or Saint Saens Organ Symphony) and turn it up to what I consider "sensible" levels many systems that do fine with Hard Rock and rap start hitting then endstops.
Sayonara
leadbelly said:
Maybe, maybe not. There are few possible coaxial solutions that did work right (chiefly the Eckmiller) and if you use a modern Digital X-Over with the option to "time align" the non-coincident sources things may get better sill.
leadbelly said:
Not really. I do listen to a lot of stuff besides classical/jazz. And with all due respect, when I pull some of my classical warhorses out (try the Ravel version of the "Pictures" or Saint Saens Organ Symphony) and turn it up to what I consider "sensible" levels many systems that do fine with Hard Rock and rap start hitting then endstops.
Sayonara
While I agree with much of the "essay" I'll voice my disagreements. (correct spelling and grammer will be absent from this reply - obviously..)
Disagreements:
1. Dispersion above the modal region..
Controlled dispersion (horizontally) leading towards decreasing (usually significant) spl levels off-axis does NOT preserve "imaging", rather it destroys it. This "destruction" however is not the same as the "destruction" caused by room-reflections. Most of the "imaging" in this region is TIME related (phase linearity becomes more important as freq. decreases). In the nanosecond to low millisecond range off-axis reproduction in time (and intensity) controls the degree and quality of specificity of the "image".
Getting this aspect WRONG (while doing most everything else "right") generates a subjective response similar to increasing dampening factor (for a given moving-mass): Image specificty remains nominally the same, but quality greatly diminishes.
Subjective responses (wrong vs. right in this instance) can be summed-up as:
"I can easily point to the location of the flute playing, but it isn't holographic - its more like a point in space where it is playing."
(Note 2 things however: 1. this is dependent on the recording (though it doesn't have to be natural) 2. Phase can play a roll here in "aural holography" if the freq. response of the reproduced dominate sound extends lower in freq. - and it doesn't have to be that far.. typically starting below 800Hz).
Of course this is "at-odds" with reducing room-reflections which IS a desirable quality (to an extent). Room Reflections in this freq. range ADD to the sound and tend to obfuscate imaging while adding ambiance.
Subjective responses (wrong vs. right again) can be summed-up as:
"I can point to the location of flute playing but the specificty isn't as distinct - rather fuzzy sounding, plus there is more air in the sound with a slight increase in soundstage bloom".
The nice thing here about this is that the more attenuated in time (i.e. less correlation) these reflections become, the less "fuzzy" the "imaging" gets. You can fairly easily do this with diffusion techniques AND/OR by simply moving yourself closer to the speakers. Additionally you can also use ABSORPTIVE techniques but don't over-do it! (please notice that I prefaced reducing room reflections via: "(to an extent)".) Its fairly commonly known that a reduced yet audible level of added "room-noise" generated by in-room reflections is DESIRABLE to maintaining the illusion that reproduced sound can offer.
Absorption can also help with spectral balance by reducing the level of high freq. s vs. that of lower freq.s.
Neither method will be perfect of course, but usually with a bit of trial and error it can be more than good enough to off-set any advantage limited dispersion might have over something approaching an omni.
So with the following in mind - don't think that limiting dispersion is a good thing. It CAN be better than the alternative IF you can't accomplish a modicum of proper listening room treatment. (and note that last time I checked Thorsten likes to listen "far-field" which could indicate his preference for limited dispersion..)
2. Dispersion below the modal region (limited disagreement though)..
There are two ways to achieve dispersion lower in freq.. The first and only current relevant method is based on creating a null-phase node via an out-of-phase summation with your in-phase signal. This is typically your "dipole" behaviour but the concept (and result) can be extended further via a second-order gradient (which increases the amount of null-phase). (the second method is real science boardering on voodoo that could ultimatly turn into a meathod for generating power in excess of input.. currently though its viewed for its military applications.. I'll leave you to ponder this one.)
Now the problem then is our physical response to the contribution of a null-phase node. Reducing pressurization in this manner reduces the "impact" of the waves pressure to our bodies (i.e. we are essentially bags of water and enjoy the "ripples" sound can make).
Subjective responses (wrong vs. right again) can be summed-up as:
"The kick drum is missing its kick.. It seems to lack punch or slam that I should be feeling in my gutt".
So then, what to do about it..
Unlike the problem and the solution on room effects above the modal region, here we have a problem that detrimentally influnces are hearing F A R more. Additionally, the "cure" is a bit more difficult to achieve.
Digital eq. is PRIMARILY the solution here BUT the upper end of the modal region is "square" in the midrange and many people find this off-putting (either because of a belief that digital per se is "bad" or that they have actually found it to be detrimental to the midrange in such a situation). Analog could be used, but to achieve a proper effect would require a GREAT degree of sophistication and flexibility in the design. Additionally, despite having the ability to "tailor" the freq. response, the net result may have TO MUCH pressurization in comparison to the event.
(Note however that in some system designs, digital eq. offers one more signifiant advantage - the ability to achieve reasonably linear phase in the region where virtually all drivers suffer phase rotation (in some cases nearing 180 degrees) - the lower midrange. Of course this phase rotation stops its rotation in sealed and dipole designs, but the continuation of phase lower in freq. is usually at the point the phase rotation stoped. As mentioned before, this DOES effect imaging - particularly image position.)
There may however be a more-than suitable compromise - (that could still benifit from the freq. and possibly phase linearity that a digital eq. could provide).
If the design were to use two similar drivers covering the same bandwith where one was used in a dipole configuration and the other in a properly constructed sealed chamber then you might achieve a level of room pressurization that was more natural to the event that still reduced room node effects (particularly if you had a level control for the driver in the sealed chamber). Additionally, (though its a guess), the dipole would likely be better served by being the closer driver to any adjacent boundries (like the floor).
An alternative approach that could STILL use digital compensation for eq. and room pressurization effects, (but not phase compensation), that was NOT IN THE SIGNAL PATH (i.e. purists rejoice!) could be derived by spliting the signal at some point (usually the pre-amp) and then sending the new secondary signal to a digital eq. that eventually "terminated" in a driver with the exact same non null-phase loading as the "main" loudspeaker has. This secondary driver system could be "tailored" for phase and freq. response via the eq. to create null phases precisely where in the freq. response the rooms modal effects create a "bump" in freq..
(also note that lower freq. linearity sometimes be achieve with multiple "subs" used throught the listening space or simply using 2 subs in the correct "spots" in the listening room.)
Disagreements:
1. Dispersion above the modal region..
Controlled dispersion (horizontally) leading towards decreasing (usually significant) spl levels off-axis does NOT preserve "imaging", rather it destroys it. This "destruction" however is not the same as the "destruction" caused by room-reflections. Most of the "imaging" in this region is TIME related (phase linearity becomes more important as freq. decreases). In the nanosecond to low millisecond range off-axis reproduction in time (and intensity) controls the degree and quality of specificity of the "image".
Getting this aspect WRONG (while doing most everything else "right") generates a subjective response similar to increasing dampening factor (for a given moving-mass): Image specificty remains nominally the same, but quality greatly diminishes.
Subjective responses (wrong vs. right in this instance) can be summed-up as:
"I can easily point to the location of the flute playing, but it isn't holographic - its more like a point in space where it is playing."
(Note 2 things however: 1. this is dependent on the recording (though it doesn't have to be natural) 2. Phase can play a roll here in "aural holography" if the freq. response of the reproduced dominate sound extends lower in freq. - and it doesn't have to be that far.. typically starting below 800Hz).
Of course this is "at-odds" with reducing room-reflections which IS a desirable quality (to an extent). Room Reflections in this freq. range ADD to the sound and tend to obfuscate imaging while adding ambiance.
Subjective responses (wrong vs. right again) can be summed-up as:
"I can point to the location of flute playing but the specificty isn't as distinct - rather fuzzy sounding, plus there is more air in the sound with a slight increase in soundstage bloom".
The nice thing here about this is that the more attenuated in time (i.e. less correlation) these reflections become, the less "fuzzy" the "imaging" gets. You can fairly easily do this with diffusion techniques AND/OR by simply moving yourself closer to the speakers. Additionally you can also use ABSORPTIVE techniques but don't over-do it! (please notice that I prefaced reducing room reflections via: "(to an extent)".) Its fairly commonly known that a reduced yet audible level of added "room-noise" generated by in-room reflections is DESIRABLE to maintaining the illusion that reproduced sound can offer.
Absorption can also help with spectral balance by reducing the level of high freq. s vs. that of lower freq.s.
Neither method will be perfect of course, but usually with a bit of trial and error it can be more than good enough to off-set any advantage limited dispersion might have over something approaching an omni.
So with the following in mind - don't think that limiting dispersion is a good thing. It CAN be better than the alternative IF you can't accomplish a modicum of proper listening room treatment. (and note that last time I checked Thorsten likes to listen "far-field" which could indicate his preference for limited dispersion..)
2. Dispersion below the modal region (limited disagreement though)..
There are two ways to achieve dispersion lower in freq.. The first and only current relevant method is based on creating a null-phase node via an out-of-phase summation with your in-phase signal. This is typically your "dipole" behaviour but the concept (and result) can be extended further via a second-order gradient (which increases the amount of null-phase). (the second method is real science boardering on voodoo that could ultimatly turn into a meathod for generating power in excess of input.. currently though its viewed for its military applications.. I'll leave you to ponder this one.)
Now the problem then is our physical response to the contribution of a null-phase node. Reducing pressurization in this manner reduces the "impact" of the waves pressure to our bodies (i.e. we are essentially bags of water and enjoy the "ripples" sound can make).
Subjective responses (wrong vs. right again) can be summed-up as:
"The kick drum is missing its kick.. It seems to lack punch or slam that I should be feeling in my gutt".
So then, what to do about it..
Unlike the problem and the solution on room effects above the modal region, here we have a problem that detrimentally influnces are hearing F A R more. Additionally, the "cure" is a bit more difficult to achieve.
Digital eq. is PRIMARILY the solution here BUT the upper end of the modal region is "square" in the midrange and many people find this off-putting (either because of a belief that digital per se is "bad" or that they have actually found it to be detrimental to the midrange in such a situation). Analog could be used, but to achieve a proper effect would require a GREAT degree of sophistication and flexibility in the design. Additionally, despite having the ability to "tailor" the freq. response, the net result may have TO MUCH pressurization in comparison to the event.
(Note however that in some system designs, digital eq. offers one more signifiant advantage - the ability to achieve reasonably linear phase in the region where virtually all drivers suffer phase rotation (in some cases nearing 180 degrees) - the lower midrange. Of course this phase rotation stops its rotation in sealed and dipole designs, but the continuation of phase lower in freq. is usually at the point the phase rotation stoped. As mentioned before, this DOES effect imaging - particularly image position.)
There may however be a more-than suitable compromise - (that could still benifit from the freq. and possibly phase linearity that a digital eq. could provide).
If the design were to use two similar drivers covering the same bandwith where one was used in a dipole configuration and the other in a properly constructed sealed chamber then you might achieve a level of room pressurization that was more natural to the event that still reduced room node effects (particularly if you had a level control for the driver in the sealed chamber). Additionally, (though its a guess), the dipole would likely be better served by being the closer driver to any adjacent boundries (like the floor).
An alternative approach that could STILL use digital compensation for eq. and room pressurization effects, (but not phase compensation), that was NOT IN THE SIGNAL PATH (i.e. purists rejoice!) could be derived by spliting the signal at some point (usually the pre-amp) and then sending the new secondary signal to a digital eq. that eventually "terminated" in a driver with the exact same non null-phase loading as the "main" loudspeaker has. This secondary driver system could be "tailored" for phase and freq. response via the eq. to create null phases precisely where in the freq. response the rooms modal effects create a "bump" in freq..
(also note that lower freq. linearity sometimes be achieve with multiple "subs" used throught the listening space or simply using 2 subs in the correct "spots" in the listening room.)
Konnichiwa,
I'll keep this really simple.
The above is simply untrue, as far as it applies to reproducing the recording as it was made. If you have an excessive wide dispersion you add too much room generated diffuse sound, which leads to the image becoming diffuse, specific insturment sizes are by far overblown and unrealistic, basically the exact type of imaging you get from most "High End" speakers and which an accurate monitor does not produce.
If you like to alter the spatial aspects of the recording, fine, but it then should be done conciously and in an controlled, adjustable way, IMHO at least.
Controlled dispresion and time coherence are not exactly mutually exclusive, are they now?
Exactly my point. Hence controlled dispersion, rather than an overly wide angle dispersion (or worse, uneven dispersion with frequency).
It is neither a good or a bad thing. It is an essential requirement if you desire to reprouce the recording ambiance and imaging as recorded. If you dislike the recorded ambiance and imaging, well then it's time to correct.
Well, given the significant problems in making absorbers that behave controlled and linear over a wide frequency range and the many other issues observable with room treatment (and I am talking strictly acoustically here) you may forgive me for suggesting to avoid the problem occouring to attempting to fix it afterwards.
I always listen far-field, of course I do. Nearfield setups I find physically uncomfortable (I like to listen to music, not be assaulted by it) and totally unnatural in the spatial aspects. Images tend to be severely undersized and depth is overly emphasised comapred to "width" and "panoarama", very unlike the real thing. If I listen near filed I might as well use 'can's and these I can stand not at all...
Actually, if you design a dipole with a suitably low LF cutoff you will be surprised about how much the Kick-Drum kicks and how much it does so in the way a real one does. Do you realise that a REAL Kick-Drum is basically a 24" Diameter dipole?
Let me put it simply. Based on my experience, which includes a quite wide and diverse range of speakers, equalisation for room effects, room treatment and so on, I find what I originally wrote about to hold true. It is not the "final word", but it is the result of considerable empirical research, theoretical resarch and much observation.
Now given that recordings are NOT perfect and that personal tastes in reproduction of music diverge it clearly is not "THE GOSPEL", it is a set of collected views that concern themselves mainly with a reproduction that is as realistic and natural as can be achieved within the limits of the recording. To some the results may be indeed "the best sound they ever heard", to others it may not provide anything like "good sound", such is the human condition.
Sayonara
ScottG said:
I'll keep this really simple.
The above is simply untrue, as far as it applies to reproducing the recording as it was made. If you have an excessive wide dispersion you add too much room generated diffuse sound, which leads to the image becoming diffuse, specific insturment sizes are by far overblown and unrealistic, basically the exact type of imaging you get from most "High End" speakers and which an accurate monitor does not produce.
If you like to alter the spatial aspects of the recording, fine, but it then should be done conciously and in an controlled, adjustable way, IMHO at least.
ScottG said:
Controlled dispresion and time coherence are not exactly mutually exclusive, are they now?
ScottG said:
Exactly my point. Hence controlled dispersion, rather than an overly wide angle dispersion (or worse, uneven dispersion with frequency).
ScottG said:
It is neither a good or a bad thing. It is an essential requirement if you desire to reprouce the recording ambiance and imaging as recorded. If you dislike the recorded ambiance and imaging, well then it's time to correct.
ScottG said:
Well, given the significant problems in making absorbers that behave controlled and linear over a wide frequency range and the many other issues observable with room treatment (and I am talking strictly acoustically here) you may forgive me for suggesting to avoid the problem occouring to attempting to fix it afterwards.
ScottG said:
I always listen far-field, of course I do. Nearfield setups I find physically uncomfortable (I like to listen to music, not be assaulted by it) and totally unnatural in the spatial aspects. Images tend to be severely undersized and depth is overly emphasised comapred to "width" and "panoarama", very unlike the real thing. If I listen near filed I might as well use 'can's and these I can stand not at all...
ScottG said:
Actually, if you design a dipole with a suitably low LF cutoff you will be surprised about how much the Kick-Drum kicks and how much it does so in the way a real one does. Do you realise that a REAL Kick-Drum is basically a 24" Diameter dipole?
Let me put it simply. Based on my experience, which includes a quite wide and diverse range of speakers, equalisation for room effects, room treatment and so on, I find what I originally wrote about to hold true. It is not the "final word", but it is the result of considerable empirical research, theoretical resarch and much observation.
Now given that recordings are NOT perfect and that personal tastes in reproduction of music diverge it clearly is not "THE GOSPEL", it is a set of collected views that concern themselves mainly with a reproduction that is as realistic and natural as can be achieved within the limits of the recording. To some the results may be indeed "the best sound they ever heard", to others it may not provide anything like "good sound", such is the human condition.
Sayonara
As a musician, i find this to hold very true, although not only in the "soundstage" sense but also in the quality of the music that is recorded. A lot of the "feeling" you can get recording a group of talented musicians is totally lost when multitracking. An individual in a group that "know" eachother well musically often interact spontaneously to the playing of the others. This cannot be recreated (to any extent) with multitracking.
It's like the soul or groove of the music is lost. Sometimes (on good recordings with skilled musicians) it takes a trained ear to know the difference, sometimes it is obvius from the first note played.
Also, going back to the Hifi-end, isn't controlled directivity a little lonesome? Or can the sweet spot be sufficiently large to incorporate several people (without having very large listening rooms)?
/Andreas
Earl Geddes' waveguides look very promising. Check out some of these plots.nuppe said:
http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/Gedlee_polar_Tad_w_EQ.pdf
http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/polar_map.pdf
http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/polar_as_FRs.pdf (each curve is the response incrementing at 7 degrees off-axis)
He claims that his waveguide designs don't have the typical resonant sound of other CD devices.
Kuei Yang Wang said:
Hola! Que tal?
Try as you might to keep it simple, it is not - neither is it untrue to reproducing the recording (of course what the sound engineer was listening is likely only a portion of the recorded sound) .
Most of the "imaging" (with an appropriate signal reproducable by a pair of speakers in-room) is determined by the speaker itself and its correlation with its "twin" and our hearing (i.e. a stereo perspective). Bloated "imaging" is usually the result of people placing their speakers to far apart, often as an attempt to achieve greater percieved seperation for overcoming either a shortcomming of the system and/or the recording.. (or in an effort to obtain a more "even" spectral balance). Other factors play a part here though, such as dampening factor, phase (depending on the freq.), freq. specific spl relative to spectral balance (i.e. broadband and narrow band "humps"), etc.. At least as far as it impacts the response above the modal region, room effects have little to do with "bloating" (or indeed "imaging" in general).
As to "high-end" speakers producing "bloat", well I've heard many in many different enviorments (as I know you have). Sometimes "bloat" was present, and sometimes it wasn't. Broad characterizations in this instance are pointless.
Rather than continuing to delude yourself (and that isn't meant to be harsh - I used to think similarly), consider this:
1. Most reputed "imaging-champs" have wide horizontal dispersion at or near level to the output on-axis. Recent "commercial debutants" include some speakers by Kharma, Pipe Dreams, and omni's in general. Such claims of greatness (in this respect) are fairly wide-spread (pun intended). In particular note that this is the perception of a fairly wide-range of people in often very different settings (acoustically) with even different associated equipment. This is in contrast to designs with greater "directivity" that never quite achieve the same level of "aural holography".(again as broad but diverse "sample").
To further highlight the point *I* was trying to make (and what you seem to be missing) - note that Pipe Dreams DO have limited dispersion via linesource characterstics as listener distance increases..
HOWEVER,
such limited dispersion (in the TIME frame I described) does not exist!!! (actually they have limited dispersion characteristics as well in this time frame, but dispersion is more substantial than many speakes..)
2. Try taking a pair of good wide-dispersion speakers out into the "field" (literally) where the only substantial boundry for MANY meters is the ground. Do the same with a pair of good limited dispersion speakers. Compare the results. Having done this myself, I am fairly certain, (provided that you are able to process the difference - and I think you will be), that you will find you are quite mistaken in your hypothosis as it conflicst with my own.
___________________________________________________
As for time and dispersion I believe that I inferred they are inclusive (not exclusive).
___________________________________________________
Someone on the AA Hi-Eff forum used the term: "throwing out the baby with the bathwater". While it's a very odd expresion, the context of its meaning "fits" rather well with your premis.
You seem "bent" on recomending the removal important "imaging" cues in the attempt to preserve important but different cues, based effectivly on the belief that they don't exist.
Futher, you suggest that reasonably proper room treatment, which effectivly allows for preservation of most related "imaging" cues (in this freq. region) - is near impossible in a domestic setting. What a load of "horse-pucky"! In fact this is precisely what I would N O T forgive.
___________________________________________________
Of course you listen in the far field, for the reasons you stated.. but why do these reasons occur? My bet is that it's NOT your perceptual ability, but rather a system (context) performing sub-optimally. (and yes, I'd fully expect than in some if not several respects perfomance of your system is extraordinary - that I don't dispute.)
I find it funny then that what you do NOT like is in fact what you advocate. "Cans" represent the "natural" conclusion of controlled dispersion. No it isn't natural, but why - hmm? (I've given you the basis for that reason.. yet you fail to "see it".. or hear it as the case may be.)
So yes, limited horizontal dispersion is a BAD "thing" above the modal region. It may however be a better "thing" if all you do to your listening room is accept a thin coat of paper or normal paint on a hard shell boundry and tuck your speakers near those boundries.
Konnichiwa,
Having heard them (Kharma, Pipe Dreams) and many Omni's as well as Full Range Dipoles, oincluding on recordings where I was familiar with the original acoustics and event - they do not reproduce the original event even remotely, they distort it. You may like or not, that is taste.
Vertical only, horizontally they do not.
Completely irelevant, UNLESS this is where you listen.
I am quite familiar with sound systems open air and in mostly dead acoustic envoironments. I find the imaging of wide diespersion speakers becomes more realistic if you (acouystcally) remove the walls and it starts to approach that of good CONTROLLED (not narrow per se, narrow is a relative term - narrow compared to what - an omni like Shahinian?) DSIPERSION system.
They are neither inclusive nore exclusive, they are independent and unrelated (that again is a fact).
No, you get this wrong.
I am insistent on reducing the amount of diffuse sound in the room, so that they do not replace the important "imaging" cues in the recording of the original event.
The best way to consider this is the "They are here" vs. "You are there" paradigm.
To get the "they are here" sensation you need to place the "musicians" within the confines of your room. Ignoring for the moment that this disallows anything above "Girl & Guitar, small Jazz combo and chamber orchestra, you need to produce a lot of diffuse sound to generat this sensation, in effect you need to obliviate the imaging/abmiance cues of the original recording and replace them with ones fitting your room.
To get the "you are there" sensation you need to remove as much as possible your room acoustically. Short of making it a near anechonic chamber you can rely on speakers that actually increase the ratio between direct sound and reflected difuse sound, in other words controlled dispersion.
Illustrate how it is possible, notably taking account of the fact that if the absobtion of the treatment materials is not even with frequency the remaining diffuse sound is altered in the tonal balance which changes often percieved instrument timbre.
It is not. Nearfield listening simply does not provide ME personally with anything approaching a realistic presentation of music. With a wide speaker placement and far field listening using controlled directivity speakers the image actually is considerably wider than the room (if so recorded) with a depth well into the nxt house, with a near holographic placement of instruments and a general acoustci space that seems almost entierly dictated by what is on the recording, meaning cavernous churches appear such and small studio sets appear as such.
ONLY and XPLICITLY is the recordings are for such reproduction (in german "Kunstkopf Stereo" - Dummyhead stereo), normal recordings do not work with 'can's, in fact they actually not only push the whole music and image uncomfortably close up (a lot closer than a Conductor gets it) but they cram the stuff inside your head. Sorry, I'm not bigheaded and emptyheaded enough for a whoile orchstra to fit there.
With suitable recordings and a pair of Stax Earspeakers I could live VERY HAPPILY, but sadly I would have to make most of the recordings I would listen to, which kind of defeats the object....
Actually, it is not natural because the recording is not made in a process that suits the reproduction. You would need to add a lot of fancy DSP to get sufficient interchannel time differences betweel L/R and the L/R crosstalk (which must be added anyway) to get recordings aimed at 2-Speaker reproduction to work on a headphone.
BUT the problem is NOT that headphone as not time coherent nor is it that lack of room reverb....
Only if you do not like to reproduce the original acoustics. If your room is sufficiently treated, then dispersion becomes a non-isse (and you are in a nearly anechonic chamber too), if not controlled doispersion is a neccesity to preserve the original recordings acoustic space.
Few people have other living rooms, even the large wall carpet behind the listening position (spaced from the wall, backed by acoustic foam, knoks at least 10 - 15db off any rear wall relections down to maybe 300-400Hz) that I used to use was banned by my wife, i need to find a better looking replacement.
So, I repeat, controlled dispersion simply means to stop the problem occouring or at least it reduced the size of the problem materially with NO drawbacks whatsoever (you have failed to illustrate how reducing the level of diffuse, listening room generated sound distorts the redition of the original recording acoustics).
Of course, this says nothing about taste, I have friends who are very enamoured with Omnidirectional or Full Range Dipoler Speakers and we are still good friends... ;-)
Sayonara
ScottG said:
Having heard them (Kharma, Pipe Dreams) and many Omni's as well as Full Range Dipoles, oincluding on recordings where I was familiar with the original acoustics and event - they do not reproduce the original event even remotely, they distort it. You may like or not, that is taste.
ScottG said:
Vertical only, horizontally they do not.
ScottG said:
Completely irelevant, UNLESS this is where you listen.
ScottG said:
I am quite familiar with sound systems open air and in mostly dead acoustic envoironments. I find the imaging of wide diespersion speakers becomes more realistic if you (acouystcally) remove the walls and it starts to approach that of good CONTROLLED (not narrow per se, narrow is a relative term - narrow compared to what - an omni like Shahinian?) DSIPERSION system.
ScottG said:
They are neither inclusive nore exclusive, they are independent and unrelated (that again is a fact).
ScottG said:
No, you get this wrong.
I am insistent on reducing the amount of diffuse sound in the room, so that they do not replace the important "imaging" cues in the recording of the original event.
The best way to consider this is the "They are here" vs. "You are there" paradigm.
To get the "they are here" sensation you need to place the "musicians" within the confines of your room. Ignoring for the moment that this disallows anything above "Girl & Guitar, small Jazz combo and chamber orchestra, you need to produce a lot of diffuse sound to generat this sensation, in effect you need to obliviate the imaging/abmiance cues of the original recording and replace them with ones fitting your room.
To get the "you are there" sensation you need to remove as much as possible your room acoustically. Short of making it a near anechonic chamber you can rely on speakers that actually increase the ratio between direct sound and reflected difuse sound, in other words controlled dispersion.
ScottG said:
Illustrate how it is possible, notably taking account of the fact that if the absobtion of the treatment materials is not even with frequency the remaining diffuse sound is altered in the tonal balance which changes often percieved instrument timbre.
ScottG said:
It is not. Nearfield listening simply does not provide ME personally with anything approaching a realistic presentation of music. With a wide speaker placement and far field listening using controlled directivity speakers the image actually is considerably wider than the room (if so recorded) with a depth well into the nxt house, with a near holographic placement of instruments and a general acoustci space that seems almost entierly dictated by what is on the recording, meaning cavernous churches appear such and small studio sets appear as such.
ScottG said:
ONLY and XPLICITLY is the recordings are for such reproduction (in german "Kunstkopf Stereo" - Dummyhead stereo), normal recordings do not work with 'can's, in fact they actually not only push the whole music and image uncomfortably close up (a lot closer than a Conductor gets it) but they cram the stuff inside your head. Sorry, I'm not bigheaded and emptyheaded enough for a whoile orchstra to fit there.
With suitable recordings and a pair of Stax Earspeakers I could live VERY HAPPILY, but sadly I would have to make most of the recordings I would listen to, which kind of defeats the object....
ScottG said:
Actually, it is not natural because the recording is not made in a process that suits the reproduction. You would need to add a lot of fancy DSP to get sufficient interchannel time differences betweel L/R and the L/R crosstalk (which must be added anyway) to get recordings aimed at 2-Speaker reproduction to work on a headphone.
BUT the problem is NOT that headphone as not time coherent nor is it that lack of room reverb....
ScottG said:
Only if you do not like to reproduce the original acoustics. If your room is sufficiently treated, then dispersion becomes a non-isse (and you are in a nearly anechonic chamber too), if not controlled doispersion is a neccesity to preserve the original recordings acoustic space.
ScottG said:
Few people have other living rooms, even the large wall carpet behind the listening position (spaced from the wall, backed by acoustic foam, knoks at least 10 - 15db off any rear wall relections down to maybe 300-400Hz) that I used to use was banned by my wife, i need to find a better looking replacement.
So, I repeat, controlled dispersion simply means to stop the problem occouring or at least it reduced the size of the problem materially with NO drawbacks whatsoever (you have failed to illustrate how reducing the level of diffuse, listening room generated sound distorts the redition of the original recording acoustics).
Of course, this says nothing about taste, I have friends who are very enamoured with Omnidirectional or Full Range Dipoler Speakers and we are still good friends... ;-)
Sayonara
I am late to the discussion. It is quite difficult to discuss something of this complexity with large time lags due to the lack of the back and forth exchange of information but I have a couple of points.
It would seem that headphones meet many of the criteria you propose are requirements for a listening experience that closely matches live music.
1. Single driver - good to excellent time alignment.
2. They appear to be omnipolar to the user (they aren't but the user can't tell)
3. They are capable of wide dynamic range
4. They can easily provide energies in the wider 50 to 12Khz (and well beyond) ranges.
5. They eliminate unplanned reflections and resonances from the room.
6. Good ones have far lower distortion than conventional drivers.
In short it would seem that heaphones come far closer to your description of an ideal speaker.
A few years back there were a series of Binaural recordings where microphone placements were adjusted to allow for headphone listening. The effect was quite remarkable, the three dimensional placement accuracy of sounds was startlingly good.
The problem is that listeners didn't immediately proclaim "Wow this is so much closer to live music, I am abandoning my conventional speakers for good." Speaker designers did not rush out and say "now I know whats wrong" let me design a whole new speaker and fix this.
I am afraid that I don't support your main point that ominipolar single source speakers are the next step to achieving closer to live sound. I have decent heaphones, I think my main speakers actually come closer to the "live" effect we would all like to acheive.
It would seem that headphones meet many of the criteria you propose are requirements for a listening experience that closely matches live music.
1. Single driver - good to excellent time alignment.
2. They appear to be omnipolar to the user (they aren't but the user can't tell)
3. They are capable of wide dynamic range
4. They can easily provide energies in the wider 50 to 12Khz (and well beyond) ranges.
5. They eliminate unplanned reflections and resonances from the room.
6. Good ones have far lower distortion than conventional drivers.
In short it would seem that heaphones come far closer to your description of an ideal speaker.
A few years back there were a series of Binaural recordings where microphone placements were adjusted to allow for headphone listening. The effect was quite remarkable, the three dimensional placement accuracy of sounds was startlingly good.
The problem is that listeners didn't immediately proclaim "Wow this is so much closer to live music, I am abandoning my conventional speakers for good." Speaker designers did not rush out and say "now I know whats wrong" let me design a whole new speaker and fix this.
I am afraid that I don't support your main point that ominipolar single source speakers are the next step to achieving closer to live sound. I have decent heaphones, I think my main speakers actually come closer to the "live" effect we would all like to acheive.
Konnichiwa,
Absolutely, with one critical caveat, they do not work with recordings made for Speaker reproduction, unless a number of steps are taken to address the differences.
Again, ABSOLUTELY AGREED. I made such recordings myself in my studio days and a good binaural (I was looking for the term) recording replayed via Koss ESL Headphones (The poor mans Stax in these days) where closer to the real thing than anything else I happened to come across back then. At the sime time play a normal recording (even minimally miked via a pair of Mikes) and the reprodution remained completely unacceptable to me. Also somewhat disconcerting is how the soundstage moves when you move your head.
I am afraid I also do not support "that ominipolar single source speakers are the next step to achieving closer to live sound."
That position is (aparently, it is kind hard to understand what he proposes) taken by ScottG.
I suggest that a controlled directivity monoplolar (in other words hypercardiode) point source speaker to be employed in the reverbrant range of the room, a dipole or unipole (cardiode) source which may not be coincident but on the same plane in the modal range and an omnipolar source below the modal range (in other words below 40Hz or lower).
I also suggest this not as absolute optimum, but as an achieveable domestic compromise, which can be managed such that the resulting structure remains mobile, modest in visual & physical footprint while still exceeding the minimum needed in other areas.
Given a choice to do so I think serious archiectural LF horn systems are preferable, but in order to controll directivity down to 50Hz or lower these must be of very considerable size, as must be the room housing them. Most of us do not live in castles with huge halls.
Headphones as such don't matter. Do you have actual live recordings made for headphones?
If not headphones simply do not work, full stop. Crossfeed circuitry etc can make listening to conventional stereo recordings on 'can's less objectionable, but one needs to in effect re-encode existing 2 Channel recordings into Binaural. In the most traditional sense that would involve placing a "blameless replay chain" into an anechonic chamber together with a suitable binaural transducer and to replay and re-record the conventional stereo recording.
In this day & age I suspect such an approach could be done via DSP routines (pretty complex ones I'd be the first to admit), though I am unaware of any specific solution at this point. PERHAPS we will eventually get such a DSP Device which can re-encode the spatial matrix of existing recordings.
And we eventually get digital input headphone Amp's driven by HDD Jukeboxes (IPod Mini anyone?) which do that, add D2A conversion and a buffer for the headphones to drive them loud and add envoironmental noise cancellation into the bargain, et voila. Sign me up for a set, so I can finally enjopy music on the train or bus....
But that as they say is another story.
Sayonara
hermanv said:
Absolutely, with one critical caveat, they do not work with recordings made for Speaker reproduction, unless a number of steps are taken to address the differences.
hermanv said:
Again, ABSOLUTELY AGREED. I made such recordings myself in my studio days and a good binaural (I was looking for the term) recording replayed via Koss ESL Headphones (The poor mans Stax in these days) where closer to the real thing than anything else I happened to come across back then. At the sime time play a normal recording (even minimally miked via a pair of Mikes) and the reprodution remained completely unacceptable to me. Also somewhat disconcerting is how the soundstage moves when you move your head.
hermanv said:
I am afraid I also do not support "that ominipolar single source speakers are the next step to achieving closer to live sound."
That position is (aparently, it is kind hard to understand what he proposes) taken by ScottG.
I suggest that a controlled directivity monoplolar (in other words hypercardiode) point source speaker to be employed in the reverbrant range of the room, a dipole or unipole (cardiode) source which may not be coincident but on the same plane in the modal range and an omnipolar source below the modal range (in other words below 40Hz or lower).
I also suggest this not as absolute optimum, but as an achieveable domestic compromise, which can be managed such that the resulting structure remains mobile, modest in visual & physical footprint while still exceeding the minimum needed in other areas.
Given a choice to do so I think serious archiectural LF horn systems are preferable, but in order to controll directivity down to 50Hz or lower these must be of very considerable size, as must be the room housing them. Most of us do not live in castles with huge halls.
hermanv said:
Headphones as such don't matter. Do you have actual live recordings made for headphones?
If not headphones simply do not work, full stop. Crossfeed circuitry etc can make listening to conventional stereo recordings on 'can's less objectionable, but one needs to in effect re-encode existing 2 Channel recordings into Binaural. In the most traditional sense that would involve placing a "blameless replay chain" into an anechonic chamber together with a suitable binaural transducer and to replay and re-record the conventional stereo recording.
In this day & age I suspect such an approach could be done via DSP routines (pretty complex ones I'd be the first to admit), though I am unaware of any specific solution at this point. PERHAPS we will eventually get such a DSP Device which can re-encode the spatial matrix of existing recordings.
And we eventually get digital input headphone Amp's driven by HDD Jukeboxes (IPod Mini anyone?) which do that, add D2A conversion and a buffer for the headphones to drive them loud and add envoironmental noise cancellation into the bargain, et voila. Sign me up for a set, so I can finally enjopy music on the train or bus....
But that as they say is another story.
Sayonara
But the problem of peaks and nulls in the sub-200Hz region still exists, if I understand correctly, as the room response of the horn is similar to that of a monopole in that region (I think).
Or maybe there's something about bass horns that is dipole-like in the way that the problem of nodes is minimized?
Bricolo said:
There called "overtones" and yes it is harmonics. It's the overtones in someones voice that alow you to recognize their voice over the telephone, even though the phone has a very limited frequency range (your brain "fills" in the missing frequency).
Now I haven't read the entire thread so this question may have been touched on by another.
Konnichiwa,
Did I now. Silly me. And silly Mr. Webster too.... I hope is rightly ashamed for putting the wrong spelling in his dictonary....
Hyperdictonary - Meaning of HINDOO
Sayonara
ERICSPEEd said:
Did I now. Silly me. And silly Mr. Webster too.... I hope is rightly ashamed for putting the wrong spelling in his dictonary....
Hyperdictonary - Meaning of HINDOO
Sayonara
Hi
Kuei Yang Wang
Lately I was thinking that a more accurate sound would result if the room was less involved with the reproduction
-directive horns eg 90 x 40 bi radial along with cone driven horn loaded midrange, with direct radiator 15" for <300hz[because horn will get rather large for most] Surely if the off axis energy is much more even then the total acoustic energy received including late room reflections will be less noxious?
This is the tact of monitors that ive seen, so if im listening to an accurate sound, that is atleast dynamic and moderately full range, and with only some room energy...
Imaging etc is something i know little of due to a variety of reasonsso il re inspect the past post by scott? who addressed this.
Me-
-being only 21
-living in NZ with no decent hifi
-owning an average system with jbl 15" subbass and listening to droning drum n bass at 114dbA..no imaging to speak of in particular.
We all know that the room changes the sound so much,yet we still require room interaction for the soundstaging? [apparent stereo image widens with mirror image sources from sidewalls and backwalls etc...
where is the right balance? a short rt60?
The room will never give the same ambience that was there in the first place - it will always be a distortion,but surely 'some' is alright
Samples,so you know where i coming from! 48kbps stream[ofcourse you wont like it,but youl understand]
Spor :: The Whisper
Counterstrike :: Africanism
You can see its easy for me,since im not recreating anything,I can make it sound how I like,since my system sounds nicer than the PA systems.
I do like classical too though..
Kuei Yang Wang
Lately I was thinking that a more accurate sound would result if the room was less involved with the reproduction
-directive horns eg 90 x 40 bi radial along with cone driven horn loaded midrange, with direct radiator 15" for <300hz[because horn will get rather large for most] Surely if the off axis energy is much more even then the total acoustic energy received including late room reflections will be less noxious?
This is the tact of monitors that ive seen, so if im listening to an accurate sound, that is atleast dynamic and moderately full range, and with only some room energy...
Imaging etc is something i know little of due to a variety of reasonsso il re inspect the past post by scott? who addressed this.
Me-
-being only 21
-living in NZ with no decent hifi
-owning an average system with jbl 15" subbass and listening to droning drum n bass at 114dbA..no imaging to speak of in particular.
We all know that the room changes the sound so much,yet we still require room interaction for the soundstaging? [apparent stereo image widens with mirror image sources from sidewalls and backwalls etc...
where is the right balance? a short rt60?
The room will never give the same ambience that was there in the first place - it will always be a distortion,but surely 'some' is alright
Samples,so you know where i coming from! 48kbps stream[ofcourse you wont like it,but youl understand]
Spor :: The Whisper
Counterstrike :: Africanism
You can see its easy for me,since im not recreating anything,I can make it sound how I like,since my system sounds nicer than the PA systems.
I do like classical too though..
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.