The Objectives of a Loudspeaker in a Small Room

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
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

before_DRC.png
 
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
 
jlo said:
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

before_DRC.png
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?
 
BlueWizard said:

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.
 
gedlee said:


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 ... :(
 
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.
 
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!
:smash:
 
JinMTVT said:
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.
 
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 ...
 
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
 
ahhaha Steeve :)
your last few sentences cheer me up :p

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 :D


"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

:rolleyes: :D :D ahah

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

and on this all have a nice nite and dreams
 
JinMTVT said:
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!
 
jeff mai said:


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 ... )
:whazzat:
 
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
 
Administrator
Joined 2004
Paid Member
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? :eek:

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.
 
aaaa... :confused:

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? :(
 
"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?
 
FrankWW said:
"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?
 
FrankWW said:
"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.
 
Administrator
Joined 2004
Paid Member
graaf said:
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. :D

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.
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.