Many years ago their was a Hi-Fi show in Raleigh, NC. Two demos still stand out in my mind. The first was Crown, using their recorders, amps, and electrostatic speakers to do a live versus recorded demo of a jazz trio. Very good. Then JBL had two of their largest speakers in an auditorium, on the stage where the orchestra would normally sit. They played some classical music ( I forget what) and I ran screaming from the room. The sound was atrocious-not even close to anything resembling reality. I think the year was 1968. Regards
I am not even sure what the correlation between coverage and imaging actually is... in my experience nearly undesirably beamy HF transducers, such as round Edgar tractrix horns produce the most "precise" imaging.
Right now I'm trying to figure out how well strongly equalized CD horns "image" compared with more directional sources.
I'm suspecting that the narrowing solid angle we learn to expect with rising frequency is part of the localization apparatus and I just don't know how CDs interface....any observations?
Most speakers image more precisely than live music anyway...
Although "stereo imaging" is a real experiential phenomenon, this is another area where inappropriate visual metaphors grew out of control during the 80s high end madness.
Hearing and vision are two amazingly developed fundamental human capabilities. We may have a more developed language for discussing vision, particularly in the eye-centric Western written intellectual tradition but it is hard to make a deeply-argued case that one serves as a modelling system for the other. Both help us situate ourselves in time and space but the more you think about this, the more differences outweigh similarities.
I think audiophiles learn a different code of localization for listening to and evaluating speakers that is based on but not identical with the way we use our hearing for surveillance of the environment in day to day life OR the way we use (or don't use) spatial cues in live performance listening.
Position of sound sources is of some minor aesthetic significance in live performance but it is not a fetishized or foregrounded aspect the way it is in audio.
I blame the nerdy TAS reviewers of the 80s for bringing this metaphorical mess upon us.
Do we want to listen to some damn music or sit around and revel in the fact that we have stereo ears and stereo systems?
Assuming we want to discuss localization as part of audio experience...well, we are doing a lousy, simpleminded job of it.
For example, I find that horns couple to the room very differently than direct radiating cones and domes. Years ago, I used the phrases " You are there" vs "They are here" to discuss the ways box speakers and horns present the 3-D stage.
We don't even have words to talk about this rather dramatic and obvious shift in perception, so how developed is this "science" of imaging analysis???
We really don't have the language to talk about many of the characteristics of sound perception.
I like the term "microphone artifacts" to account for and put in context a lot of what impresses us as "imaging"
Including many that were not part of the original event, artists intention, and experience of listeners at the original event--if there even was an actual live event and not FEDEXed or emailed recordings that distant players added parts onto.
And missing many nuances that were available for attendees at the original jam.
But aside from that it is perfect reproduction...
Hey, idealism is cool.
Last edited:
Hi Joe
The name is familiar from the olden days of the triode list or something.
I think the idea of the mono phantom was something that began with stereo because before that, there was no attempt to produce a panorama.
The hardest part of the panorama is when you have an identical signal to each speaker, ideally an identical signal to each ear as it would be from a real source in the same front position.
I believe that to a degree, the large scale effect is in some cases also related to the radiation type as well as aural ques.
What I mean is a large ribbon , planar or line source all have a physically large image, what they radiate is intentionally not curved in the vertical plane and so we hear that as a full height source.
An ideal source of this type will always sound like it is level in front of you no matter what your head height is.
This is not what a full range point source horn sounds like even if the horn is 5 feet tall.
That source being a point source radiates a curved wave front and so if one were standing in front of a 5 foot horn, the sound always sounds like it was coming from a point well behind the speaker at half height (a point in space).
Now part B is what we have learned and know about sound and apply unconsciously.
For example, how do we know how far away a sound is?
Well if it’s far away, there is a high frequency roll off and lots of trailing arrivals from ground reflections.
If one reproduces that signal with a source with little directivity and in a room, it will sound like a speaker in a room playing a recording with that distant effect.
Without room reflections (only the direct sound) what you hear is a something like a open window where there is a distant sound on the other side. If what you play is a Big sound, it will sound big too.
It’s funny too how our hearing senses work, we equate all the weird things our ears and head shape do to the acoustic pressure not as flaws but as the things we use to hear the height and position.
Here is a fun test which demonstrates that our ears are NOT the final judge UNLESS your eyes are closed (or prior knowledge removed) and you are forced to depend on them alone.
Try The McGurk Effect! - Horizon: Is Seeing Believing? - BBC Two - YouTube
I should say my thoughts on hearing are my observations over the years refining point source full range horns but based on that I have been playing with a way of capturing the ‘stereo image’ in a live setting.
Although I haven’t a lot of time to put into it, I believe it does illustrate that there is a different way of cracking the nut of a real stereo image.
The thing is sort of cumbersome and butt ugly so I have only made one live music recording with it and that is not on the web site.
These are environmental sounds which for my purpose are good as they are difficult to capture always available AND I was there live and know what they all sound like.
These are the front two channels of a full surround recording and correspond to an acoustic field of view roughly equal to our vision (about 110 degrees). Try a couple of these on headphones first as they are hard to reproduce realistically with most speakers. The audio files are stuck at the bottom of this page;
Danley | Technical Downloads
Thinking about it more, I think the strong thing about the WE driver is that it covers the range where our ears have the greatest acuity as a single source in time and space and as it was usable vastly louder (theater use) was very well behaved at living room levels.
It does not depend on resonances to cover this band and the materials had a good combination of damping and rigidity. Crossover phase shift is something like spacing two drivers apart front to back, the higher signal emerges first.
Auditioned through headphones one may not hear that phase shift alone BUT that also does not capture how two sources separated front to back in time or Z, radiate into space from two locations in X and Y..
Our hearing process is really fascinating I think, much more than it appears. I love it when something sounds real enough to make the hair stand on the back of the neck.
Best,
Tom Danley
The name is familiar from the olden days of the triode list or something.
I think the idea of the mono phantom was something that began with stereo because before that, there was no attempt to produce a panorama.
The hardest part of the panorama is when you have an identical signal to each speaker, ideally an identical signal to each ear as it would be from a real source in the same front position.
I believe that to a degree, the large scale effect is in some cases also related to the radiation type as well as aural ques.
What I mean is a large ribbon , planar or line source all have a physically large image, what they radiate is intentionally not curved in the vertical plane and so we hear that as a full height source.
An ideal source of this type will always sound like it is level in front of you no matter what your head height is.
This is not what a full range point source horn sounds like even if the horn is 5 feet tall.
That source being a point source radiates a curved wave front and so if one were standing in front of a 5 foot horn, the sound always sounds like it was coming from a point well behind the speaker at half height (a point in space).
Now part B is what we have learned and know about sound and apply unconsciously.
For example, how do we know how far away a sound is?
Well if it’s far away, there is a high frequency roll off and lots of trailing arrivals from ground reflections.
If one reproduces that signal with a source with little directivity and in a room, it will sound like a speaker in a room playing a recording with that distant effect.
Without room reflections (only the direct sound) what you hear is a something like a open window where there is a distant sound on the other side. If what you play is a Big sound, it will sound big too.
It’s funny too how our hearing senses work, we equate all the weird things our ears and head shape do to the acoustic pressure not as flaws but as the things we use to hear the height and position.
Here is a fun test which demonstrates that our ears are NOT the final judge UNLESS your eyes are closed (or prior knowledge removed) and you are forced to depend on them alone.
Try The McGurk Effect! - Horizon: Is Seeing Believing? - BBC Two - YouTube
I should say my thoughts on hearing are my observations over the years refining point source full range horns but based on that I have been playing with a way of capturing the ‘stereo image’ in a live setting.
Although I haven’t a lot of time to put into it, I believe it does illustrate that there is a different way of cracking the nut of a real stereo image.
The thing is sort of cumbersome and butt ugly so I have only made one live music recording with it and that is not on the web site.
These are environmental sounds which for my purpose are good as they are difficult to capture always available AND I was there live and know what they all sound like.
These are the front two channels of a full surround recording and correspond to an acoustic field of view roughly equal to our vision (about 110 degrees). Try a couple of these on headphones first as they are hard to reproduce realistically with most speakers. The audio files are stuck at the bottom of this page;
Danley | Technical Downloads
Thinking about it more, I think the strong thing about the WE driver is that it covers the range where our ears have the greatest acuity as a single source in time and space and as it was usable vastly louder (theater use) was very well behaved at living room levels.
It does not depend on resonances to cover this band and the materials had a good combination of damping and rigidity. Crossover phase shift is something like spacing two drivers apart front to back, the higher signal emerges first.
Auditioned through headphones one may not hear that phase shift alone BUT that also does not capture how two sources separated front to back in time or Z, radiate into space from two locations in X and Y..
Our hearing process is really fascinating I think, much more than it appears. I love it when something sounds real enough to make the hair stand on the back of the neck.
Best,
Tom Danley
From that comment I can only conclude that you have not heard them, or heard some crazy bad set up. Which is it?
Please tell us you experiences with these systems.
This nonsense of superior '1928 sound' has got to be settled, buried.....burned at the stake as such. The notion of playing a Violin solo thru said loudspeakers is like asking a car to drive straight.............I am often inundated with the virtues of collector car "superiority"....having had all those old cars in the past....they were crap, yes you could drive straight, but that is no test of over-all performance....nor is a Violin solo.
These arrays are so rare no-one dare 'test' them for ultimate performance.....Notions and tightly held beliefs reel from the sight of instrumentation.....The technician demonized. The light of truth will never listen to these devices......the 'faith' must be maintained.
I wonder.....did audio enthusiasts of 1928 'prefer the wax cylinder recorders of Edisons time......."They sound more lifelike".
________________________________________________________Rick.........
These arrays are so rare no-one dare 'test' them for ultimate performance.....Notions and tightly held beliefs reel from the sight of instrumentation.....The technician demonized. The light of truth will never listen to these devices......the 'faith' must be maintained.
I wonder.....did audio enthusiasts of 1928 'prefer the wax cylinder recorders of Edisons time......."They sound more lifelike".
________________________________________________________Rick.........
My comments were never directed at the WE speaker , it was of Joe 's description of big sound , actually Big mouth sound that some ESL's and horns are famous of ..
Hence the 12ft wide harmonica comment .
Rick, I don't think you should hold back so much. Tell folk how you really feel.
These speakers a bit later than '28 sound very pleasant if they're not played too loud. Part of the reason I think folk perceive them as sounding live and natural, and so forth is that they're really big and the horn has an abrupt mouth termination. The diffraction products they produce at the throat and along the length are reflected back down the horn by the mouth impedance and it's BIG in there, and they rattle around for awhile before finally radiating into the room. Some of them rattle around for so long they become somewhat decorrelated from the their originating signal. This rather low level decorrelated sound is then further decorrelated as it reflects around the room, (usually a biggish room cuz you can't fit them into a small room), and this gives a nice feeling of spaciousness. The good part is that they still deliver lots of direct sound and have great dynamic range.
So if you set them up properly in a big, but not too big, reasonably live, high ceilinged room, feed them a clean signal with some nice EQ, if needed, and let speakers and electronics just loaf along unstressed, you can have a very good musical experience. Which, in some ways, mostly having to do with the big room, is superior to modern domestic music reproduction.
I think though, in the same room one could probably have an even better experience with properly set up modern equipment.
These speakers a bit later than '28 sound very pleasant if they're not played too loud. Part of the reason I think folk perceive them as sounding live and natural, and so forth is that they're really big and the horn has an abrupt mouth termination. The diffraction products they produce at the throat and along the length are reflected back down the horn by the mouth impedance and it's BIG in there, and they rattle around for awhile before finally radiating into the room. Some of them rattle around for so long they become somewhat decorrelated from the their originating signal. This rather low level decorrelated sound is then further decorrelated as it reflects around the room, (usually a biggish room cuz you can't fit them into a small room), and this gives a nice feeling of spaciousness. The good part is that they still deliver lots of direct sound and have great dynamic range.
So if you set them up properly in a big, but not too big, reasonably live, high ceilinged room, feed them a clean signal with some nice EQ, if needed, and let speakers and electronics just loaf along unstressed, you can have a very good musical experience. Which, in some ways, mostly having to do with the big room, is superior to modern domestic music reproduction.
I think though, in the same room one could probably have an even better experience with properly set up modern equipment.
But it won't be settled.
The legend is too strong. Read all the caveats given by those that have heard them, explaining away the shortcomings of narrow band and not quite flat response. These are the Stradivarius' of audio. If I tell you "I will now play a $10 million violin." are you going to be critical of the sound? The expectation of the experience will be too great.
Much more interesting would be a blind test, a comparison behind a curtain where the listener had no clue that something Western Electric was in the mix.
Regarding wax cylinders, there was an interesting period where the Gramophone magazine railed against the new fangled electric motored turntables. "There's no music in electric motors." Science is under assault everywhere else, why not here too?
David S
You guys crack me up. It's old - therefore it HAS to be suck. Sure, OK, whatever. Your loss. Those who have heard them can continue to enjoy them, those who have not can continue to tell us how bad they must be. Pretty pointless.
David, you keep going on about how those who like them - like them because of nostalgia. How do you know this? I claim that don't know it, you are simply assuming it. I've already said it had no role in my enjoyment of them, nor (as far as I could tell) many of the others who listened to them. Why do you choose to ignore this? Does it make them easier to dismiss?
Would I use a Western Electric system at my next gig? No way. I used to drag around Altec A5s and that was bad enough. No matter how good the W.E. gear sounds for "sit done listening" it ain't a wise choice for your next rock concert. Neither is it even a good choice behind the screen of the local multiplex cinema. Too big, not enough power handling, probably not adequate coverage.
As I said at the top of the thread, we have made a lot of progress. Louder, cheaper, smaller, more practical. All of those are very important, especially if you earn your living with audio gear. But for pure listening pleasure and a sense of reality? I've never heard better.
Sure, OK, whatever. Your loss. Those who have heard them can continue to enjoy them, those who have not can continue to tell us how bad they must be. Pretty pointless.David, you keep going on about how those who like them - like them because of nostalgia. How do you know this? I claim that don't know it, you are simply assuming it. I've already said it had no role in my enjoyment of them, nor (as far as I could tell) many of the others who listened to them. Why do you choose to ignore this? Does it make them easier to dismiss?
Would I use a Western Electric system at my next gig? No way. I used to drag around Altec A5s and that was bad enough. No matter how good the W.E. gear sounds for "sit done listening" it ain't a wise choice for your next rock concert. Neither is it even a good choice behind the screen of the local multiplex cinema. Too big, not enough power handling, probably not adequate coverage.
As I said at the top of the thread, we have made a lot of progress. Louder, cheaper, smaller, more practical. All of those are very important, especially if you earn your living with audio gear. But for pure listening pleasure and a sense of reality? I've never heard better.
I'm just pointing out the bias that comes from being presented with such legendary speakers. I believe that nearly everyone at the demonstration will come away with a great impression at least partially because of the hoopla surrounding the event.
Picture this, the sommelier comes to the table with the $300 bottle of wine your rich uncle is buying for you. He tells you about the legendary history of Château Lafite Rothschild. The region, the grapes, the history, the proscess. He uncorks it, has a sniff of the cork and smiles. He pores you a sip.
What do you think? Is it just okay?? Are you willing to say you aren't impressed?
Read this on sighted listener bias:
Audio Musings by Sean Olive: The Dishonesty of Sighted Listening Tests
Sean Olive found that listeners had much stronger positive oppinions about speakers that were expensive and of good reputation. Oppinions faded when the speakers were hidden behind a screen.
Just like the musicians that couldn't distinguish the Stradivarius' when they couldn't see them.
David S.
too many if's without real McKay
I didn't heard them and most probably never do , but I'm more on the believer side (considering which old geezers are saying that they're good ) , then on non-believer side .
if I can hear them , I'll have my own impression , without need to endulge anyone , except my own ear/brain combo
had too many mishaps , embracing new and better , just to make full circle and swallow some humble teaching lesson .
there are just categories of quality , age is irrelevant .
we are not talking about X386 vs. quad core ..... this is "just" acoustic
or we can say that we have bigger giants than PWK or Olson , these days ?
I didn't heard them and most probably never do , but I'm more on the believer side (considering which old geezers are saying that they're good ) , then on non-believer side .
if I can hear them , I'll have my own impression , without need to endulge anyone , except my own ear/brain combo
had too many mishaps , embracing new and better , just to make full circle and swallow some humble teaching lesson .
there are just categories of quality , age is irrelevant .
we are not talking about X386 vs. quad core ..... this is "just" acoustic
or we can say that we have bigger giants than PWK or Olson , these days ?
Fully agree. Our prejudices absolutely impact our perceptions to a huge degree. Audiophile, know thyself! At the same time, I would caution that it is pointless to ridicule anyone who finds pleasure in a holistic experience of sound, nostalgia, and confirmed prejudices. Because all these ingredients are creating for them a very real event of listening veritas.
To restate: yes, blind listening tests are absolutely the only useful way to determine what actually sounds better. But, to most audiophiles, that piece of the experience isn't even half the story. For the experience to really ring the personal, subjective bell of truth, it requires elements that invoke shared philosophy, nostalgia and pet biases and provide something compelling to the senses of sight and even touch.
The objectivist's hangup is that he doesn't like it when the subjectivist talks about better sound that measurably isn't.
The subjectivist's hangup is that he doesn't like the objectivist telling him that only the actual, measurable sound matters when there's clearly much more involved in the pursuit of individual audiophile truth.
You missed what I was saying... I said a REAL LIVE amplified harmonica sounds huge.
100 feet away it might sound like a point but not at close range in room.
On audio systems it would be almost invariably shrunken in apparent size.
A violin in a reverberant concert hall sounds physically HUGE. On most speakers, it is a tiny shrunken head of an "image."
My point is that most loudspeakers do not produce "images" of realistic scale...and nobody takes this as a problem. Hyped up locialization, independent of apparent size, seems to be the dominant metric.
Loudspeakers do not capture the physicality of musical performance properly, whether acoustic or amplified.
Large horn systems do this better than most, I think.
Fair question.
Note that we are talking about cinema systems here. Also note that most cinema systems these days ship with little or no crossover and it is assumed that external electronic crossovers and 1/3rd Octave EQ will be used. As such you can only look at the raw material of the woofers and horns and compression drivers.
I would offer the JBL cinema line is typical of the better available stuff. This shows their whole lineup.
http://www2.jblpro.com/catalog/support/getfile.aspx?docid=1496&doctype=3
I haven't used any of the new horns but I very much like a system using the Keele designed 2360. Here is the system, the 4675:
http://www.jblpro.com/catalog/support/getfile.aspx?docid=634&doctype=3
I install these in a number of theaters every year. It uses the 2360b horn which has very smooth response and incredibly uniform polar curves.
http://www.jblpro.com/catalog/support/getfile.aspx?docid=174&doctype=3
The response is not flat since the compression driver has the usual mass breakpoint at 3kHz or so and a 6dB per Octave slope above that. Response is very smooth and extends well enough to the top Octave so I don't need to consider a 3-way. Response extends well below the 500 Hz crossover point.
The woofers are well behaved and have no nonlinearity issues at high drive (DC offset or farting). The whole system can be set up and equalized to be smooth and neutral over a broad audience area. Output is adequate up to 500 seats.
I have also heard these in a medium sized listening room and they sound Hi-Fi, wide range, smooth and neutral.
Not quite as good are the studio monitors I designed years ago at JBL, the 4430 and 4435. They have a little bit of courseness above the crossover point but they seem to have a good following.
4430/35
SMITH RECALLS
Regards,
David
Rick...that is some crazed raving that puts my own crazed ravings to shame.
Of course these WE systems are commonly measured and have been since 1928. What kind of measurements do you want? Or rather, what kind of measurements would provide you with a test of ultimate performance?
Maybe I can point you to the numerals you need to chill your mind.
We use Clio a lot when dialing things in but, know what, it is useless to tell us whether or not something sounds good.
I'd still say that listening is the ultimate test...and really the only proper test for a device that is going to be used for listening.
If you want to come to Munich or Seoul and measure, for the benefit of putting a stake in the heart of vintage insanity, you are welcome.
I predict that instead you would immediately start looking for a pair of WE 555s!
I really don't understand why people have such resistance to understanding that the world's leading research and manufacturing institution of the day actually produced some highly sophisticated and extremely high performance equipment in the 1930s. This is freaking Bell Labs...big science, enormous budget. They controlled patents on basic notions such as negative feedback.
WE sound gear is like physics lab equipment. it is very precisely defined what it can do.
Magico, Sonus Faber, or whatever modern high-end plastic woof speakers are not like physics lab equipment. They are more like furniture from a really high end hotel.
I can only conclude that people like this have not done all of their homework and are falling mindlessly into the myth of eternal progress. It is a strong and captivating tendency...far more so than "retro fever" and probably more insidious because there are a lot of external cultural supports for this sneaky ideological stance.
I say the truth is the opposite...modern defenders of the faith are afraid of ancient WE. WE guys are not afraid of measurements.
And in the end, measurements might show that the HF extension is 13k not 22k or some other bat sonar wavelength. SO? I'll still take a WE597A* over a ceramic dome tweeter because it sounds better.
*Standard 597A tweeter HF pole was 13k although some were manufactured with 18k top end.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.