The Objectives of a Loudspeaker in a Small Room - Page 12 - 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 3rd July 2007, 04:20 AM   #111
JinMTVT is offline JinMTVT  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: MTL
ahhaha Steeve
your last few sentences cheer me up

But i have again to disagree with the subjectivism of your comment

the bass bump, or equialisation required because you added people in the room can always be arranged

BUT ONLY if you had perfect reproduction to arrange
at first ...

if your reproduction is flawed before modifying it to your taste, then you will not have achieve a correct reproduction

but then again, this thread isn't about your tastes or mine, it is about ( or am i steering it towards ) understanding the fundamentals of sound reproduction

Then, about the studio mixes
don't tell me that one human engineer, is able to mix to perfection a few tracks of different instruments and reproduce a live event were all the instruments would be played all at once + room interaction

there is a major difference between a live recorded event and trying to achieve a reproduction of its feeling,
and a studio mastered from tracks event ...
thus if you listen to pop music, you will likely be listening to a mastered recording, wich is not flawed in itself since it is what the engineer/artist wants you to get as a reproduction ..but it is still very very different from a live recorded event.


i guess ( without the knowledge) that studio engineer mix/master with a stereo setup ( client ) in mind
so it will sound good/as they want it to
on a regular stereo system ..wich is what we also want


but this again has nothing to do with a live even such as an orchestral record and reproducing the spatial effect included in its recording

and about the different feels of a live event ..
crowd and matters as such has nothing to do with our accoustical discussion

and about volume
what was recorded at one point , was done at a certain amount of SPL
wich can be reproduced easily with good quality loudpseaker system ..this is not a limitation
if your system doesn't play loud enough to reproduce the actual SPL recorded at the live event,
either listen to it closer or augment the number of drivers on ur system


"And, perhaps a drop or two of intoxicants"
ahahahha .. what are you trying to say here?
i don't really care if you are on drug when u go to concert ... that certainly not infer with my audio listening experience

ahah

( drug is NO GOOD FOR UR HEALTH... )

and on this all have a nice nite and dreams
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd July 2007, 04:41 AM   #112
diyAudio Member
 
jeff mai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Melbourne
Quote:
Originally posted by JinMTVT
but subjectivity doesn't have anything to do here though... everything can be measured phisically
Ahh, but it does...

Where the two objects compared each measure so that one is more nearly perfect in one measurement area (frequency response), but the other is more nearly perfect in a second measurement (harmonic distortion), how can we rank them on an absolute scale of accuracy? Someone has to decide which deviation is more important. The act of deciding IS subjective!
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd July 2007, 05:39 AM   #113
JinMTVT is offline JinMTVT  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: MTL
Quote:
Originally posted by jeff mai


Ahh, but it does...

Where the two objects compared each measure so that one is more nearly perfect in one measurement area (frequency response), but the other is more nearly perfect in a second measurement (harmonic distortion), how can we rank them on an absolute scale of accuracy? Someone has to decide which deviation is more important. The act of deciding IS subjective!

And here i stand corrected .....

( i can say i stand, since as i predicted..i cannot sleep now ...tomorrrow will be a long work day ... )
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd July 2007, 07:14 AM   #114
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Actually, JinMTVT, I don't disagree with you in concept, I think your points are valid. I'm just pointing out a flaw in the original assumption.

Sy in post# 1 said -

As much as people like to discuss the "sound" ..., the elephant in the room is stereo itself. We start with a HUGE approximation- ... we stick a couple of boxes ... into a room of questionable reverberation totally unlike the original acoustic space. Out of all this, we expect to have our ear/brain sense something that reminds it of live music in a different space.

But a vast majority of music we listen to with our stereos in NOT 'live music' in the sense of a reproduction of a live concert. Yes, living musicians make the music in a studio, but much of what we hear is added tracks, mixing and re-mixing, overdubbing, etc.... A genuine 'live concert' is the least of our listening experience, and probably the poorest quality capture of a musical event.

So, I object to the original premise that a 'live concert' is the standard we are trying for. I think we are trying for a objectively and subjectively good experience.

Yes indeed, we do need to consider technical specifications and technical measurements, but they are our assurance of a reasonable outcome, not the outcome itself.

Once the technical design is hammered out, the practical considerations are made, the final design is implemented, and the technical measurements bare out the original design goals, then we have the final and ultimately the only important test; someone listens to it.

Once the human factor is introduced a HUGE blend of subjective factors comes into play, as well as an even HUGER range of generally uncontrollable psychological factors. Listening to music is a sensual experience; it is emotional, it is psychological, it is pleasurable or not depending on personal taste and the music being played.

Technical specs give us some assurance of competent reproduction, and they are certainly important to anyone who really cares about the quality of the music they listen to. But, in the end, the one and only thing that counts is 'does it please me'.

Some people actually LIKE harmonic distortion as is attested to by the many amps with 10% Total Harmonic Distortion being sold every year to satisfied customers. As are the many booming one-note speaker sets being sold. Some people are easily pleased, while others, like us, are not.

I don't like distortion, harmonic or otherwise, but life is life, and I am forced to, and therefore willing to, live with a certain degree of compromise. I don't have a 1,000 watt amp, but I do have a good quality 50 watt amp with very good specs. It pleases me. I do have some DIY speakers (12" low, 3"x9" mid horn, 3" high) that have pleased me for several years, but I think with a little work, they can please me even more.

The original poster asked -
...what are the objectives for design and engineering in the first place?

and the answer is 'to please the customer'.

What pleases an intelligent, educated, experienced, discerning customer is technically accurate reproduction combined with general physical and musical aesthetic appeal within the limits of their budget.

What pleases the generic customer is booming one-note speakers and 10% THD amps, but who are we to say they have no right to be pleased?

I think 'to please the customer' really is the answer to the central question. Knowledgeable customers are pleased by quality products with good design philosophy and good specs that translate well into a perceived quality listening experience within a reasonable budget.

Technical specs are important, but you simply can not divorce subjective evaluation, personal preference, psychology, and budget from the equation, because they all matter as much to the user and to his (or her) final decision as the technical specs do.

When the abstract factors are added; pleasing the customer, really does become the number one design goal.

Steve/BlueWizard
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd July 2007, 07:25 AM   #115
Pano is online now Pano  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
Pano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Milliways
Blog Entries: 4
Since there has been some discussion of art and reproductions here, let me step in. Fine art printing is my business.

The is a certain similarity to the music recording process in the art biz.

1) We start with the original art, in this case a painting, and make a "recording" of it (a high definition scan).

2) Next the image is color corrected and proofed. This can be seen as analogous to the mix down in music. Take the raw recorded material and shape it electronically to best resemble the original.

3) Once the artist signs off on the proof, the image is "mastered". i.e., put into a format format suitable for the printer. Like the CD mastering.

4) The reproduction is printed. Or played back, if you will.

With a closed system like this, the reproduction can be so close to the original that some times the artist can't tell which the original and which is the print.

Music doesn't have that closed system. The production team has to do its best with the equipment available and hope that it plays well when it gets out the general public - and who knows what they will be listening on?

But can you do better than the finished product? I think so.

For example, in the printing business technology changes all the time. Printers, software, inks, substrates all change and evolve. It can happen that an old printing file (the recording) has to be moved to a new printer. And that printer, along with the new inks and substrate might be better than the equipment originally used.

The same image now has more detail, a wider gamut, better contrast, etc. Would it be wrong to reproduce it that way because it wasn't proofed (produced) with all those advantages? Not if you ask most artists! The extra details and dimensions make them very happy. It gets closer to the original, it conveys more of the feeling and emotion of the original work.

That information was always there in the recording, but the equipment used to "mix and master" just couldn't recover all of it. When the equipment becomes available to do a better job, why not do it? Not reinterpret it, just get more out of it. The final mix is always a compromise, it isn't ever perfect. We can just hope that it is done to the best of the abilities of the production team and the equipment used.

It can be a fine line to tread, the difference between revealing more detail and a wider gamut than the original production and changing the original intent. But as long as the new system is neutral and linear, I don't see any harm.

What all this has to do with speakers in a small room, I don't know. But since it was mentioned, I thought it could be expanded.
__________________
Take the Speaker Voltage Test!
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd July 2007, 08:41 AM   #116
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
aaaa...

where is the topic?

what are "The Objectives of a Loudspeaker in a Small Room" as opposed to "The Objectives of a Loudspeaker in a BIG Room"?

this is how I understand the topic of this thread
am I wrong?

Are we going to find out what Mr Geddes has found?
Are we going to find out what is in Mr Toole's paper titled "The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers in Small Rooms"?

or is this thread another going absolutely nowhere?
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd July 2007, 09:54 AM   #117
FrankWW is offline FrankWW  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: n/a
"Objectives of loudspeakers in a small room"

Let me see if I can summarize what I've learned from the discussion, so far.

The room is what imposes constraints on speaker design and operation: in most small rooms major constraints are paucity of lf modal reflections, and too early lateral hf reflections. These mask musical information (which includes the real or virtual "room" sound the recording was made in).

The object of loudspeaker design and operation is therefor not to exacerbate these bad aspects of small room.

One implication is that we need lots of lf speakers (lots of lf modes) and good control of hf directivity of front speakers (much weaker early hf lateral reflections).

Another implication is that, up to some point, the smaller the room, the more speakers we need to use and the more extremely we have to control hf directivity.

Also, we can achieve our objective more completely by ameliorating the worser apects of the room by modifying it with treatments which will lessen lf modes and disperse hf early lateral reflections.

OK, what have I missed?
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd July 2007, 10:15 AM   #118
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally posted by FrankWW
"Objectives of loudspeakers in a small room"

OK, what have I missed?
what You have described is a "standard approach", absolutely nothing new at all

it was written thousand times here and elsewhere, just everywhere
then what's the point of this thread?
what is the educational value of it?
What new and interesting was Mr Geddes going to tell us?

BUT
You seem to have missed those "diversified opinions"

Why did dr Toole any research in "The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers in Small Rooms" if everything is so simple and clear?
Why did he decide to publish the results of his research?
What is the point of all this?

Do You think that Toole just wants to question things that are so obvious?

Think how is it possible that people praise the space-recreation aspects of omnidirectional designs?
With all those early and very early reflections?
How is it possible?
Is everything really so simple?

What do You think?
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd July 2007, 10:29 AM   #119
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally posted by FrankWW
"Objectives of loudspeakers in a small room"

The object of loudspeaker design and operation is therefor not to exacerbate these bad aspects of small room.

and what about Mr Moulton who insists that the smaller rooms are not at all bad but even better?
Have You read the interview with him?
I pasted a link above in my first post.

Can we just say that he is "quite incorrect"? Where is discussion?Where are arguments?
He has got his arguments - read the interview please.

Maybe my expectations as to the content of discussion are higher then average because of my academic background, I don't know

but I'm totally dissatisfied with the content of this thread so far

questions are asked, things are questioned and...
and that's it, nothing more
no answers, nobody is even trying
just a lot of "off topics"

I would like to see a real educational thread on the subject of "The Objectives of a Loudspeaker in a Small Room" very, very much.
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd July 2007, 11:03 AM   #120
Pano is online now Pano  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
Pano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Milliways
Blog Entries: 4
Quote:
Originally posted by graaf
but I'm totally dissatisfied with the content of this thread so far
Graaf, dude. Chill out. It's only audio. Go outside, take a deep breath, fire up a nice spliff and relaaaaax. Listen to some music.

I'm sure Mr. Earl will be back soon to shed some light on his findings. And tell us what a "small room" actually is.
__________________
Take the Speaker Voltage Test!
  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 01:41 AM.


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