In certain parts of the world the C cassettes are still popular, not that they belong to a cult but it's like the only option. You try go and suggest multichannel to them 
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Sorry for the late answer... 
Human perception is not an objective measurement system. It varies greatly from subject to subject and - even for the same subject - it changes continuously. Human perception is not repeatable! It's never (exactly) the same again.
Pretend that you could be faced twice with exactly the same physical "event": do you believe that you will perceive it in (exactly) the same way twice? (...of course not!).
The first that comes to mind is speaker placement. Though also the traditional front-firing speakers really work well only when carefully placed in a proper position, they usually (sort of) works in just about any of the casual/nonsensical positions they are often placed by many (not to say most) end users, such as next to a wall or corners, on a bookshelf or over some other piece of furniture... "wherever they fit".
On the contrary, "flooders" and/or omnidirectional speakers must be placed properly and carefully to work well. They actually require speakers and room to be considered as a system (by the end user, too). Otherwise they usually gives very poor / bad results. Unfortunately, this usually means that they have to be placed about "in the middle" of the room (rather than next to a wall or in a corner), something which is often impractical in most home (living room) installations.
Not to mention that market(ing) is all about business and economics, not quality. Think e.g. VHS vs. Video2000 vs. Betamax. Was really VHS the best one? not quite... yet the market picked it up while the other have disappeared.
Nevertheless, various kind of omni and "flooders" speakers are in fact being produced and sold nowadays. Even by a "big-one" like Philips: Fidelio, Sound and vision.
to put it briefly, forget about that. You can't.
Human perception is not an objective measurement system. It varies greatly from subject to subject and - even for the same subject - it changes continuously. Human perception is not repeatable! It's never (exactly) the same again.
Pretend that you could be faced twice with exactly the same physical "event": do you believe that you will perceive it in (exactly) the same way twice? (...of course not!).
well, this may be what (some) theory says, in general. Fact is, at least in a limited number of specific cases, empirical evidence (listening...) told me a different story. In science we are supposed to change theories according to empirical facts/evidence, not the contrary.
non sequitur. I can imagine an almost countless number of reasons why it is so, none of which has anything to do with relative merit (quality) of the different systems.
The first that comes to mind is speaker placement. Though also the traditional front-firing speakers really work well only when carefully placed in a proper position, they usually (sort of) works in just about any of the casual/nonsensical positions they are often placed by many (not to say most) end users, such as next to a wall or corners, on a bookshelf or over some other piece of furniture... "wherever they fit".
On the contrary, "flooders" and/or omnidirectional speakers must be placed properly and carefully to work well. They actually require speakers and room to be considered as a system (by the end user, too). Otherwise they usually gives very poor / bad results. Unfortunately, this usually means that they have to be placed about "in the middle" of the room (rather than next to a wall or in a corner), something which is often impractical in most home (living room) installations.
Not to mention that market(ing) is all about business and economics, not quality. Think e.g. VHS vs. Video2000 vs. Betamax. Was really VHS the best one? not quite... yet the market picked it up while the other have disappeared.
Nevertheless, various kind of omni and "flooders" speakers are in fact being produced and sold nowadays. Even by a "big-one" like Philips: Fidelio, Sound and vision.
no way. Tried it, as well as ambio and other alternatives. IME/IMO, with proper room/speaker setup, to date nothing is better than the good old stereo.
that's why they created Google Translate (direct link to the translated page). It's far from perfect, but should be enough to understand most of it.
you need to register to see pics & other attachments there (no problem, it's free and safe - no SPAM or other nasty things. Forum interface can be set in English, too). IIRC I've already posted here a picture of the old version some time ago. Nevertheless, here are a couple of pics of the new version (during "prototype" fine-tuning).thanks for the input
Attachments
Last edited:
How do they need to be placed? What parameters does one need to look at to ensure they work? What needs to be avoided?
Sorry for the late answer...
to put it briefly, forget about that. You can't.
Exactly. However, any comparison without a reference is useless. Any evaluation of quality without a reference is also useless.
Thanks for stating the obvious here
well, this may be what (some) theory says, in general. Fact is, at least in a limited number of specific cases, empirical evidence (listening...) told me a different story. In science we are supposed to change theories according to empirical facts/evidence, not the contrary.
Then you still have some unfinished business to take care of. Your work is not done
. So am I to take your subjective experience over what others have published and been scrutinized by their peers? Can I see what you have published that shows ceiling reflections are beneficial? I ask, because I have seen measurements from Bob Hodas that shows they are not. I have also heard from many published folks they aren't either. So it seems you and graaf are wading up a strong current without the proper boat here.
This really is an air sandwich. I prefer more substance than this.
The wonders of flexibility!
And this inflexibility does not lead to any better results than a flexible one.
VHS was the best for what consumers wanted it for. Hence why it survived, and Beta died. It had longer playing times, and was cheaper. You can be technically superior, but if you cannot appeal to the consumer, you won't survive. That is what happened to beta. It happen to SACD vs DVD-A as well. The entire recording infrastructure was based on PCM(heavy advantage DVD-A). It had everything going for it(you could do post work on it to tweak it to near perfection), and yet SACD is still releasing disc, and DVD-A is dead as a door knob.
The we come to Bluray versus HD DVD where the most technically proficient format actually did win.
I guess you win some, and you lose some even if you are the best.
In America we don't consider Philips to be big. It is a second tier lower quality brand to us. Here Philips is a major player in LED lighting, and that is about it.
While Philips may sell this speaker(and there may be others like it) it makes up such a small percentage of sales, we cannot even find them in brick and motar stores. Remember, if you cannot deliver what the public wants, it is insignificant, or it dies. The public has chosen front firing speakers, and that is what the majority of manufacturers are spending their R&D money on.
Well here is the voice of a minority. I have never heard anyone who has heard well recorded multichannel music played back over a quality, well CALIBRATED(the emphasis is because this is the area where most people fail) properly set up multichannel system thought stereo was better. It is a good thing we all have preferences, because I would never want to be stuck with something I thought was inferior like stereo is.
I suspect your multichannel experience was not on good quality well calibrated system.
that's why they created Google Translate (direct link to the translated page). It's far from perfect, but should be enough to understand most of it.
This was pretty meaningless to me. It is up to you to make your point, not for me to search it out.
This is a waste of time. Once again, you have to make your point, not make me search it out.
Last edited:
Indeed. If we were talking about an objective evaluation.
But in audio (for human beings) that is simply not possible. At least, not with our current (limited) level of knowledge of the relevant matters (perception and psychoacoustics, to begin with).
All we can actually do and that really matters to the end users (that is, us) is our own personal, subjective evaluation of the perceived quality of a given system.
That's why there are so many totally different systems out there, and no one can be considered a true "reference" for everyone.
indeed. Just done it again...Thanks for stating the obvious here
unfinished? not even started!
I've just reported some of my subjective experiences with one particular system (well, a few of them). Nothing more than that. As clearly stated, I do not pretend to know why they works so well (at least for me and a few others who have tried).
Understanding how and why would be a whole different story... and surely not an easy one.
Nevertheless, IMO these experiences obviously suggests that there could/should be some "merits" in these kind of unconventional systems.
problem is, any attempt to obtain objective information on these subjects is extremely critical WRT the particular system, methods and conditions with which that information have been obtained (among the other things).
For instance, if you have run some experiments with a "conventional" (front-firing) system, how can you reasonably extend the obtained results to a completely different system?
You can't compare apples and oranges. Pretending to generalize a result which have been obtained in a particular special case is scientifically wrong, not to say plain nonsense.
Put it in another way, I do NOT ask anyone to take anything "over" anything else. It's just a different piece of information. A different piece of a huge (and mostly unknown) puzzle, so to speak.
you can't have your cake and eat it too...
that's your opinion. From what I have understood, without having any direct experience of the systems Graaf and I are talking about.
My opinion, based on my own direct experiences, is quite different...
here is the obvious, again...
I mean "big" (I should say huge) company WRT specialized audiophile speakers builders/brands...
so what? aren't we in a DIY forum? who cares what the industry or the market does!
nope.
I do not have any point to make or to "sell" to anyone.
I just shared my own personal experiences. As well as a free, "open source" project (not of my own) of a simple and cheap speaker system which is able to do some(*) little wonders.
(* just to make it clear and avoid misunderstandings: I never claimed that it's the best of the world under each and every aspect. But - for what regards imaging - what it is able to do is so good to be almost unbelievable).
I don't care whether you are interested or not about it. If you are, take your time and go on... otherwise fell free to ignore it.
(BTW, I do not understand why you are following this topic if you consider it to be just BS...).
Indeed. If we were talking about an objective evaluation.
But in audio (for human beings) that is simply not possible. At least, not with our current (limited) level of knowledge of the relevant matters (perception and psychoacoustics, to begin with).
All we can actually do and that really matters to the end users (that is, us) is our own personal, subjective evaluation of the perceived quality of a given system.
That's why there are so many totally different systems out there, and no one can be considered a true "reference" for everyone.
indeed. Just done it again...
Yes.....but why I dunno
unfinished? not even started!
If you have not started, then how do you come to the conclusions that you have?
How is the scattering of reflections all over the room. Why is because one is trying to counter the weaknesses of the delivery format which is stereo. You are using the room to add spaciousness to the recording. Unfortunately you are still stuck with a front loaded spatial presentation with a pipeline that is too small. You are doing the same thing as a spatial processor would.
I guess it works if you like the "effect".
I think Floyd Toole has been pretty open about his testing methods AND conclusions. Floor and ceiling reflections are not good, lateral ones are.
The "unconventional" system has to stand on its own. Since we know that 99% of all music is mixed and mastered on "conventional" systems, the "unconventional" system is doing nothing more than creating an alternative "effect".
This is subterfuge at best.
The puzzle is well known(maybe not to you though), it is just the "unconventional" system is re-mixing the picture into something else. It is re-arranging the pieces to create a completely different picture from the original. The "photoshop" of audio.
you can't have your cake and eat it too...
Yes you can. You can have your cake and Ice cream, you just can't have it with stereo.
And this is where you would be wrong. I have had three experiences with the system you and Graaf are talking about. I wasn't impressed with what it did to my recordings. As I stated before, it completely changed the spatial presentation I mixed and mastered. It smeared detail, created images that were out of scale, it lack dynamics and "kick", couldn't do deep bass, and it was too diffusive. To hear my recordings played back on a flooder was a bit strange if completely inaccurate.
My opinion, based on my own direct experiences, is quite different...
Thanks for the minority report!
here is the obvious, again...
Turnabout is fair play
Oh it is a big company alright. It does not sell specialized audiophile speakers in America. It sells great LED products, and cheap speakers for Ipods and phones. They are not what I or anyone else would call "audiophile".
The market and the industry cares.
That is what I thought. So this makes your previous statement on this issue pretty irrelevant.
Imaging is only one aspect of getting good speaker performance. As far as imaging goes, it does not do very well. It does well at creating spaciousness out of a format that lacks it. From an imaging perspective, it distorts it.
The topic is interesting. The claims being made on the topic are BS. Can you see the difference?
Those are sentences without scientific meaning or value. Absolutely nothing in the world is exactly the same in the next moment. Everything does change from one nanosecond to the next, if you are sufficiently niggling about it.
But what we know is:
- There have been lots and lots of acoustical tests with overwhelming majorities reporting identical acoustical perceptions - where "identical" means within reasonable limits.
- It has been shown that trained people or "experts" don't diverge in their reported perception, but they converge - even while they get more critical and sophisticated in their judgment.
- Acoustical perception is hard-wired for a large way into the brain. If we perceive different things at different moments, this has very much to do with changes in our attention and concentration, but next to nothing with differences in the way we hear.
- There is the common error to mistake the vast differencies in musical taste and habits for differencies in acoustical perception. If someone likes punchy bass and others do not, that does not indicate that what they hear is different.
Rudolf
Once uppon there was a documentary on the television netwok! I was thinking before that building a pair of 2 way bass firing up tweets suspended on a wood ledge but time passed, I had no time and saw the documentary meanwhile on TV.
It said in similarity to my beliefs that bass firing up is not of much effect and radiance isn't the problem in most cases, tweets the same as in my opinion they must be firing towards in standard dimension of the speakers because they cover up more audible range.
Now the sittuation with the basses that are firing up is good only and in most cases in large and larger rooms, they give a sweeter sound for how sound contoures itself.
Tweeters positioning is a case of human choice, as it comes to be adapted actualy for one that uses them or wants to impress through sound, mostly appliable for diy-ers!
It said in similarity to my beliefs that bass firing up is not of much effect and radiance isn't the problem in most cases, tweets the same as in my opinion they must be firing towards in standard dimension of the speakers because they cover up more audible range.
Now the sittuation with the basses that are firing up is good only and in most cases in large and larger rooms, they give a sweeter sound for how sound contoures itself.
Tweeters positioning is a case of human choice, as it comes to be adapted actualy for one that uses them or wants to impress through sound, mostly appliable for diy-ers!
If one has been paying attention to this discussion, this question is completely unnecessary.
what I propose is not scattering of reflections all over the room at all
not at all - rather to unmask the spaciousness that IS in the recording and while it can be heard through a pair of good cans as well, it is lost in a conventional setup
not at all, there is no sameness because it is the spaciousness that is in the recording
You choose to ignore all significant differences between floor and ceiling reflections produced by a conventional system and by a FCUFS system
it's Your choice but please be aware that You choose to ignore
not at all, it doesn't sound like an effect, there is no sameness imposed on all reproduced recordings
not really but yes, it certainly makes it look better
whereas You choose the worse looks
it's Your choice, thanks for admitting that (for whatever reason) You choose the worse
well, I guess that those FCUFS systems were not very well... well ...calibrated so to speak
I can understand Your subjective feelings in such a situation
but perhaps it changed it for the better? Perhaps the images were out of the intended scale but more realistic?
definitely sounds like one not very well calibrated and generally suboptimal FCUFS implementation
I can understand Your subjective preferences but please don't try to make them any sort of universal measure of quality ok?
the conventional setup lacks spaciousness, not the stereo format
what sort of distortion is it?
and more professionally biased towards a higher IACC sound which is actually less realistic
see Toole, page 119: "Audio professionals may have their own preferences—it’s all right, they are just different"
What you propose, and what actually happens seem to be quite different.
Can I show me support to this statement? Because it certainly does not match my experience. If you are going to rehash the "use your ears" angle - I did, and it does not support what you state here.
No, the spaciousness is in the room. Stereo as a format does not support sufficient spaciousness on its own - hence why it needs the support of the speakers and the room
Quite the contrary. We understand pretty profoundly that floor and ceiling reflections are not good. I have seen no support that a different speaker design changes that fact.
It is the same thing, and your denial does not change that one bit. A spatial enhancer does not have a sameness either, it can be adjusted and tailored a million ways. If the speaker system changes the original signal in any significant way, it becomes and effect. The is especially true if the changes are spatial in nature.
not really but yes, it certainly makes it look better
That is if you ignore the original. Better in your eyes, is not better in mine.
Flooders in particular make it worse.
You haven't proven you have chosen better. Where is your proof?
well, I guess that those FCUFS systems were not very well... well ...calibrated so to speak
It seems to me you need to measure them first before you can come to that conclusion. I don't recall you measuring them, or even saying you did.
Actually is was objective, because it was rather obvious it was altering the original recording. I didn't monitor, mix, or master any of my recordings on a flooder, so that is not my reference.
Try again.....
Based on the reference, I found neither the former or the latter even remotely true.
definitely sounds like one not very well calibrated and generally suboptimal FCUFS implementation
Once again, if you did not measure the system in the room, then you cannot expect this statement to be even remotely true. You haven't even seen the speakers, so you talk about a conclusion made in a vacuum. You cannot decide from across the ocean that a speaker sound good or bad, or how well it is calibrated. When you make statements like this, it looks plain foolish and desperate.
I can understand Your subjective preferences but please don't try to make them any sort of universal measure of quality ok?
I can understand your love of flooders, but please don't misrepresent facts for plain nonsense.
No, it is the format, and Markus has stated this as well. Hence why you need speakers with a low direct to reflection ratio level to get it.
I think I have stated it at least a half a dozen times.
Last edited: