The Objectives of a Loudspeaker in a Small Room - Page 11 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Multi-Way

Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 2nd July 2007, 09:36 PM   #101
jlo is offline jlo  France
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: france
another approach to "loudspeakers in a room" :
it is very difficult to dissociate the loudspeaker response alone from the global response loudspeaker+room : you need an anechoic room and a switch to quickly transform it into a living room...maybe more difficult to do the switch than to do a perfect loudspeaker.
So I did a free auralization software that simulates early reflections and modes : if you listen with headphones, then you can instantly add the room. I already presented this soft an another topic but received no feeback (why ?). There are other features, it needs no special installation, it's easy to use so why not try it ?
here it is

Click the image to open in full size.
__________________
jl ohl
ohl about audio
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2007, 10:35 PM   #102
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Huge long thread; confess I did not read it all, but I read a lot of it.

I think a couple of points are being missed. First, creating music is not about acoustical perfection. When you create music, anything goes, distortion of all and many types, noise, crappy mics, poorly tuned instruments; whatever, ultimately pleases the creating artist and their adoring fans is correct, even if it is not technically correct.

As to the title -
"The Objectives of a Loudspeaker in a Small Room"

am I to assume that means 'The Objective of Loudspeakers in a Non-Auditorium Listening Environment'?

The next thing I would like to point out is that most of us, OK not us, most of them actually like bad music. No, I don't mean Marilyn Manson and Sid Vicious, I mean distortion, music hopelessly out of balance across the frequency spectrum, painful harmonic distortion.

I have a friend who hated it that I played my TV though my stereo. I just didn't sound right to him, so I turn off the stereo, and turned the TV speakers on and he was happy with the muffled, droning, narrow range, distorted sound that came out. To him, that is how a TV is suppose to sound. OK, that lasted about 10 seconds, and I told him to suck it up and listen to it my way.

People listen to AM Radio, or at least they used to; you turned it on, music came out, and you (OK, they) were happy. Despite all it's limitations, AM Radio please a lot of people.

And that brings us to the real subjective test, am I pleased by what I hear?

Many people are pleased by crappy boom-boxes with booming one-note bass, poor midrange, and grating highs. Many of these people crank the bass to MAX, the treble to MIN, and boogie all night long,...and they are pleased.

Now we come to US, rather than them. We are not trying so much to please our ego (though certainly to some extent), or our perception of what is good. We have something of an objective standard of what is good. We've heard enough good music that booming one-note bass, sucky mid-range, and grating highs are simply not going to cut it with us.

But none the less there is still a huge psychological component to our listening, that can't, or at least shouldn't, be engineered toward.

Our goal, by my speculation, is to remove the objectionable components of the equipment, so we can experience the music as close to how it exists in the recorded medium as possible. Note, I said 'in the recorded medium', not 'as it was recorded'. Again, in the artistic process of making music, anything goes, so whatever the circumstances were during that recording session (mics, acoustics, intoxication, etc...) are irrelevant, as long as the artist approves the final result.

Whether printed, painted, sculpted, or musical art, when the artist say 'pack it up and ship it out', then whatever goes out the door is the artistic vision we are to expect in out homes.

The final measure, is and alway has been, does it please us? Is it a fair and reasonable presentation of the artistic vision? I don't put a Rembrandt behind rose colored glass because that distorts the artists creation. I don't tolerate, within the limits of my budget, crappy users or equipment alterations to the music I listen to. My bass isn't rattling the windows, but it is crystal clear within the limits of my budget and equipment.

Objective design based on clear technical parameters is what assures me that my subjective experience will be a real, accurate, and pleasurable one. There is a limit to how much bad stereo equipment I can stand to listen to. There is also a limit to how much good stereo equipment BADLY APPLIED that I can listen to.

My stereo is pure budget, conceived and dedicated in poverty, but I've made the most of what I have, and I think I apply it rather nicely, and most important of all, the effect is rather pleasing. Isn't THAT what it is really all about?

Steve/BlueWizard
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd July 2007, 12:18 AM   #103
soongsc is offline soongsc  Taiwan
diyAudio Member
 
soongsc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Taiwan
Quote:
Originally posted by jlo
another approach to "loudspeakers in a room" :
it is very difficult to dissociate the loudspeaker response alone from the global response loudspeaker+room : you need an anechoic room and a switch to quickly transform it into a living room...maybe more difficult to do the switch than to do a perfect loudspeaker.
So I did a free auralization software that simulates early reflections and modes : if you listen with headphones, then you can instantly add the room. I already presented this soft an another topic but received no feeback (why ?). There are other features, it needs no special installation, it's easy to use so why not try it ?
here it is

Click the image to open in full size.
I think this is an interesting tool. Might play around with it to see how it works. Where is the thread that talks about this?
__________________
Hear the real thing!
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd July 2007, 02:21 AM   #104
gedlee is offline gedlee  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Novi, Michigan
Quote:
Originally posted by BlueWizard

I think a couple of points are being missed. First, creating music is not about acoustical perfection. When you create music, anything goes, distortion of all and many types, noise, crappy mics, poorly tuned instruments; whatever, ultimately pleases the creating artist and their adoring fans is correct, even if it is not technically correct.

And that brings us to the real subjective test, am I pleased by what I hear?

Many people are pleased by crappy boom-boxes with booming one-note bass, poor midrange, and grating highs. Many of these people crank the bass to MAX, the treble to MIN, and boogie all night long,...and they are pleased.

Now we come to US, rather than them. We are not trying so much to please our ego (though certainly to some extent), or our perception of what is good. We have something of an objective standard of what is good. We've heard enough good music that booming one-note bass, sucky mid-range, and grating highs are simply not going to cut it with us.

But none the less there is still a huge psychological component to our listening, that can't, or at least shouldn't, be engineered toward.

Our goal, by my speculation, is to remove the objectionable components of the equipment, so we can experience the music as close to how it exists in the recorded medium as possible. Note, I said 'in the recorded medium', not 'as it was recorded'. Again, in the artistic process of making music, anything goes, so whatever the circumstances were during that recording session (mics, acoustics, intoxication, etc...) are irrelevant, as long as the artist approves the final result.

Whether printed, painted, sculpted, or musical art, when the artist say 'pack it up and ship it out', then whatever goes out the door is the artistic vision we are to expect in out homes.

The final measure, is and alway has been, does it please us? Is it a fair and reasonable presentation of the artistic vision?

Objective design based on clear technical parameters is what assures me that my subjective experience will be a real, accurate, and pleasurable one. There is a limit to how much bad stereo equipment I can stand to listen to. There is also a limit to how much good stereo equipment BADLY APPLIED that I can listen to.

My stereo is pure budget, conceived and dedicated in poverty, but I've made the most of what I have, and I think I apply it rather nicely, and most important of all, the effect is rather pleasing. Isn't THAT what it is really all about?

Steve/BlueWizard
I guess that I mostly agree, but you are walking a fine line here.

To me there are two things going on here - the performance - the "art - and the reproduction of that art. Subjective opinions of the "art" are fine and reasonable and always valid, good or bad. But the playback system should in itself be neutral, neither adding to or subtracting from that art. The playback should not have any features that can be described in subjective terms - those terms should be saved for the art. To me you seem to be mixing these two separate things together somewhat.

I like the discussion of "budget" as all too often these threads get into discussions that are academic because of the expenses involved. I am very budget oriented and seek to sell speakers with the best value - not the biggest price tag.
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd July 2007, 03:06 AM   #105
JinMTVT is offline JinMTVT  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: MTL
Quote:
Originally posted by gedlee


I guess that I mostly agree, but you are walking a fine line here.

To me there are two things going on here - the performance - the "art - and the reproduction of that art. Subjective opinions of the "art" are fine and reasonable and always valid, good or bad. But the playback system should in itself be neutral, neither adding to or subtracting from that art. The playback should not have any features that can be described in subjective terms - those terms should be saved for the art. To me you seem to be mixing these two separate things together somewhat.

I like the discussion of "budget" as all too often these threads get into discussions that are academic because of the expenses involved. I am very budget oriented and seek to sell speakers with the best value - not the biggest price tag.

I have to agree 100% with you on the "art" vs reproduction ...wich are 2 different things to me completly

as you said the reproduction system shouldn't be adding anything at all to the recorded information

IT is supposed to be a transport media, not a filter ...


On the question of budget, i tend to remove that notion of $$$ when i think about the bases of accoustical because the $$ can always be worked around.

Lets say, if we'd all together here in the community, would invent the PERFECT LOUDSPEAKER system ...
even thought it might well be extremely expensive to make only a few units all by ourselves, the costs get down dramatically once you enter the mass production, or group buys ...

but neway, this particular thread is of academic style
and not oriented towards budget discussion

gedlee: do YOU know what we are all doing wrong ???
i can't seem to grasp the reason why there are soo many different constructional ideas of a loudpseaker system, yet so few recording setups ( type of mics and such )

if we take again the example of an orchestral recording with a stereo microphone positioned in front row mid scene, why is it that we can't use all the information that is in the recording to playback what was supposed to be heard at this exact location ??

the problem i am having is to correlate the playback part with the recorded information
how are we supposed to emulate correctly sound that comes from everywhere but was captured at 1 point in space ??
my first thought would be an omnidirectional driver that would play all the frequency ( theoriticallly )
or a pair of the mentionned ..

but again i have difficulty positionning the stereo reproduction VS the captured stereo information
wich already contains the completness of all that would be heard at this position including spatial info

is there something more than sound information in the human hearing system ?

i have to read documents on the human hearing system,
i don't understand much of how it works...

i still think that there is just no way that we could playback a recorded stereo sound on a loudpseaker system and have the exact same information enveloppe reproduced ...

Imagine a spatio-temporal portal that would exist in your room and right in front of an orchertral concert...
that would let sound and sight go through up to us
but again, if it be of a "point" source type, there is no way that the sound get to us unaffected by the source size and reproduce the same spatial information
we would have to be envelopped by this "portal" to be able to receive sound from alot of different places , to get something that would be near perfect

oh, i am scaring myself here, this sound alot like multi-surround setups now ...
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd July 2007, 03:14 AM   #106
diyAudio Member
 
jeff mai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Melbourne
This talk of "neutrality" and "accuracy" always troubles me. Here's why: given any two systems that are not absolutely neutral or accurate, how do we define which one is "more accurate" or "more neutral"? It is impossible to define a relative scale of accuracy in general terms that is not subjective on some level.

I think people forget that while "accurate" and "neutral" are objective terms (either something is perfect or it isn't), the terms "accuracy" and "neutrality" are subjective.
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd July 2007, 03:31 AM   #107
JinMTVT is offline JinMTVT  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: MTL
can't we only refer to the source for comparison ?

it is accurate if there is no additional or removed information on the playback time

neutral is nothing more ...same thing

why do we always go back to subjectivity if we can't even solve the correct reproduction dilema?

No one can say that a reproduction is perfect unless we can compare directly to live event, wich is phisically impossible, but if we know that what we are using for playback is reproducing with as much accuracy as possible the source signal, isn't that enough ?

how you personally perceive the result is up to you,
or me, or him ... this is most of taste than accoustical


i now seriously think that reproducing an accoustical event that was recorded in stereo at 1 location is impossible ... i think i ain't going to sleep at all tonight
please someone confort me before i go to bed!
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd July 2007, 03:36 AM   #108
diyAudio Member
 
jeff mai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Melbourne
Quote:
Originally posted by JinMTVT
but if we know that what we are using for playback is reproducing with as much accuracy as possible the source signal, isn't that enough ?
I'm asking what is the measure of accuracy in the absence of perfection? How can we compare and rank any two inaccurate systems? There simply must be a large element of subjectivity involved in order to do this.
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd July 2007, 03:58 AM   #109
JinMTVT is offline JinMTVT  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: MTL
ok i now understand your point

but subjectivity doesn't have anything to do here though... everything can be measured phisically

so the only way to compare would be to include a set of phisical measurements and analyse them VS the source
i guess ... could be very tedious when including spatial information ... don't even know what is already in use for that kind of stuff

if we forget the material ( loudspeaker, room, amplifier..)
2 accoustical signal can be measured and compare ?


i am currently listening to the very little binaural librairy i have ...and forgetting the limitations of headphones in terms of vibration and feel, the spatial information is seriously near perfection in correctly recorded events.
and i have yet to listen to a stereo system
( i do not have alot of personal experience, but i ahve attended a lot of Montreal's show, and have been in listening box more than a few times )
that can provide the same spatial accuracy
( too bad the feeling isn't much there with headphones)
So binaural + heaphones are obviouisly doing something that a regular stereo loudpseaker system isn't ...


What about nearfield listening ?
i have experienced line arrays a few times now,
and they seem to have a very definite spatial quality
is it because of the nearfield position?
if a set of loudspeaker would be able to reproduce all the audio qualities of the source almost perfectly
( dynamic range,spl,pahse,no distortion and so on.... )
would "nearfielding" those give a correct reproduction ?
the spatial information of the recorded event beeing already withing the source, i guess that nearfield eliminates most unwanted interactions with our environement ...
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd July 2007, 04:06 AM   #110
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
To gedlee,

You seem to have understood what I said perfectly.

In Art, anything goes.

In reproduction, nothing goes...or at least nothing extra should go in.

But what constitutes 'nothing' or something 'extra'? If you tweak the bass control up a bit, isn't that 'extra'? Isn't that altering the artists original intent? But on the other hand, isn't that OK, if it pleases you?

You said -

To me you seem to be mixing these two separate things together somewhat.

I assume by 'these two', you mean Art being one and reproducing Art being the other.

In this gray area, what I'm trying to say is that the Perfection you (we) are seeking doesn't exist, because there is always a subjective element as can be seen in the people who prefer 'bad' stereos badly used.

Budget also comes into play even in a theoretical discussion like this. Because 'budget' doesn't have to be small. You could spend $250,000 on a room and a near perfect stereo system to fit it, and there is alway someone who will come along and say 'Wouldn't it be better if?' or 'isn't the bass a little weak' (or too strong, as the case may be)?.

So, there is no perfection. Even if you have this magic $250,000 room, as soon as you invite three or four friends over, their presences completely throws off the room equalization.

So, 'good' only exists within expressed parameters, and one of those parameters is always budget. The other is personal taste. Another is technical specification which represent a design goal ideal tempered by practical considerations.

Next, and this applies more to JinMTVT's comments, a live recording is not the absolute test of reproductive perfection. In fact, studio recordings where multiple tracks can be laid down and special effects added, where sound can be balanced and re-balanced, and pitch corrected, will produce a better listening outcome, when the final recording is played. This is as true of classical music as it is of Rock and Roll.

In the studio, as well as in a live recording, you don't have two mics (left channel and right channel) because no mics can ever even remotely come close to the complexity of the human ear tempered with the experience of the brain. This is one of the major flaws of even the very best hearing aids. They simply can not and are not as discriminating about what they hear and what they pass on to the brain as a normal human ear is.

The Bi-Aural idea is flawed because of this. The only way to get a pleasing reproduction of a live performances, it with many many microphones very strategically placed and isolated, and then to re-mix them in the studio to enhance the final product.

No recording ever can or ever will (within out lifetimes) reproduce a live experience. Partly because there is a HUGE psychological component to live performances, a psychological component that is not likely to every exist at home.

Though, not necessarily a completely psychological aspect of live performance, you have to consider the massive amount of air that is being moved in a live concert; walls and walls of Marshall stacks, PA systems as big as a two-story house and more than one of them. You simply can never move that much air in that way, even if you scale everything down to a single room in a normal home.

Next, there is the ambiance. The adrenaline rush of being in the big crowd. The thrill of feeding off the energy of the crowd and the moment. And, perhaps a drop or two of intoxicants. Plus there is the immediacy of it; it is all happening spontaneously and you are being dragged along with it. In that situation, you are psychologically very forgiving of technical errors, errors that you would never tolerate at home.

So, in all honesty, I don't think live performance is the true test or standard of reproductive excellence. Studio recording will always yield a result that is more pleasing to the ear when heard in a reproduction.

So, within known standards of technical quality, the best we can do is acquire the best equipment we can to give us the best reproduction we can expect at a given cost. All of which is then tempered by the subjective preferences of the listener.

'Standards of technical quality' are always tempered by 'something'.

Those of us in the know, choose wisely, and budget well, and are usually semi-please with the result; semi-pleased until our budget allows us another upgrade.

Those of us, not in the know, choose crappy boom-boxes and use them poorly. Let us bow our heads and have a moment of silence for those poor souls.

Steve/BlueWizard
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
QuAD ESL 57 in a small room? dude007 Planars & Exotics 3 26th November 2007 02:22 PM
Suggestions for a small room? StoneT Full Range 4 25th October 2007 02:08 AM
Big Room to Small Room CARTRulz Subwoofers 1 21st August 2006 05:59 AM
Small Monitors, Small Room Seth Smith Multi-Way 0 30th January 2006 05:01 AM
Small Room RAYSIMMONS Multi-Way 14 6th February 2003 05:06 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:14 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2