not at all, so hard to see?
yet Your conclusions and design choices are quite different
and He doesn't believe in the correlation - He investigated it and He clearly gives precedence to scientifically conducted listening tests. Results of those tests are the measure of any measurements relevance, not the other way round.
But it is beyond objective vs individually subjective dispute.
View attachment 360283
From day one every music reproduction system has been called "realistic" until the next "more realistic" system came up. "Realistic" isn't only most subjective, it is most relative too. So we best forget about that word altogether.
relative yes - exactly therefore it can be a measure of better or worse quality
but it is not subjective, what is subjective about it??
Only in a few areas, most notably directivity. Otherwise we are in complete agreement. By the way Floyd is not a "designer" he is an "evaluator". He has never evaluated my "design choices" so you cannot say that he would disagree. And my designs are not all that far from the premium designs of his former employee. So I think that you have this quite wrong.
But this brings in another key point being made here recently and that is the difference types of "sound reproduction". One type assumes the recreation of an original venue and the other takes stereo and the studio as the venue and the creation of an image in our own listening spaces is the goal. There need never have been an "original performance in a venue" in this later case, hence none can be "recreated". It is whatever the artists intended.
That these two different source types yield different approaches should not be surprising. For the most part optimizing for one will also optimize for the other, but this is true only up to a point. Spaciousness versus imaging is a classic case in point. Optimizing one through directivity will inherently degrade the other. Which one you prioritize will drive the design. The "recreate the space" will clearly prioritize spaciousness since there is not a strong image in a large hall. If you look to stereo as the source independent of any original venue then image will certainly be your priority.
I believe that we should all be very clear when we talk about the tradeoffs which "side" of this we are on. It is obvious what side some are on, but not at all obvious about others.
That, or more easily by tilting the tweeter towards the ceiling to reduce direct energy and increasing reflected energy. This method fits under the title of this thread, too
When early ethnologists took photographs of indigene people or recorded their voices (with Edisons apparatus), those people believed that their faces and voices had been stolen. They mistook the pictures and recordings to be "the real thing" in a very original sense.
Since then we call every more advanced reproduction system "realistic", until we become aware of its faults or a still better technology. In simple terms: We call it "realistic" because we don't know that a more "realistic" system exists. This is the subjective part of it.
Last edited:
You mean like Salmi does in the Gradient Helsinki?That, or more easily by tilting the tweeter towards the ceiling to reduce direct energy and increasing reflected energy. This method fits under the title of this thread, too
I posted a musical comparison to make a point...your response was that the comparison was invalid because that type of music (or the entire subset of modern / dead acoustic space music) was irrelevant for the purposes of judging a system.
So, if your point wasn't to invalidate my comparison by simply declaring those types of music can't be used to judge the performance of a system, then what was your point, precisely?
OK, on the graph we see phase vs. frequency.
I was shure you will be asking that question ...
The measurement has been made approx 95cm from the center of the panel.
The panel - which in fact is an array of panels - is about 40cm wide and 120cm tall.
Thus the distance is more than double of the panels width.
At 1Khz the distance is approx 3 wavelengths
At 2Khz the distance is approx 6 wavelengths
Surely these are not far field conditions.
But as you can see, while the frequency response changes only mildly
- which is in contrast to a pistonic driver having several wavelengths in diameter -
phase vs. frequency changes rapidly with off axis angle increasing, when you watch
the graph above a certain frequency.
The pattern observed will also change with vertical angle.
The phase patterns will surely look different, if you use a directional microphone or increase
the distance. But they cannot disappear. A virtual coherent driver of that size cannot produce
such mild changes in FR, it can be achieved only by diffuse radiation, when a direct radiating
membrane is used.
The delay is changing because there is no acoustic center in that conventional sense.
There is a multitude of virtual sources on the panel array active and those sources radiation
will sum different according to amplitude and phase at different points measured in the
neighbourhood of the panel. Even the location of virtual sources is frequency dependent.
Nevertheless, due to structure and chosen points of excitation, this panel has quite flat
group delay on axis. And it has some defined frequency range, where phase decorellated
radiation to off axis angles begins.
Btw. this device cannot be compared to simple "panel speakers" or "DMLs" known, it is a
bit more elaborated.
I also would rate it a "floor coupled design", at least for low frequencies ...
If e.g. critical narrowband components of the onset of a musical instrument to be identified
are shifted selectively, even delays in the magnitude of a 1/2 wavelength can alter the
sound or make the sound source hard to recognize.
There is no general answer to that question ...
Maybe it helps to visualize decorrealated phase contour into a diffuser pattern at the
listening room's walls for the first reflections.
If you have planes at your sidewall and ceilings that are (mutually random) offset
by say 15cm in depth (e.g. 1/2 wavelength at 1Khz) and there are also smaller "offsets",
you might be remembered of typical diffusers like used in theaters.
It is a differerence, whether that kind of furnishing "comes with the speaker" or whether
the listening room starts as a shoebox with plain walls.
Even usual DML's do interact only mildly with adjacent walls, because combing is reduced
by decorrelation.
The difficulty is maintaining a coherent radiation to the front and also finding the right
frequency range, where decorrelation should start.
You have to get that right and you also have to get things right like
- balanced bass response and
- proper decay
both of which usually to not come with the DML/Panel approach.
But without that, a DML is just a device suitable for applications like
artificial reverb prolongation IMO.
Last edited:
Perhaps I can state this in another way that might make more direct sense.
Right now, I'm listening to Rachmaninoff - Rhapsody on a theme of Paganini. I'm sure this would sound really cool on a properly set up omni system. Probably better than it sounds for me right now. Winner - You. (this type of music represents 10-15% of my collection.)
But here's the rub.
Next in the queue is Fourplay - Galaxia. I love this song and when it comes on, I'll probably grab the remote and punch the volume up to nearly THX reference levels. The dynamics will be crisp, drums will punch and bass will be thick and serious.
Now, that recording will sound good on your system, if you appreciate the things your system does well, and it'll sound good on mine, to me, because I appreciate the things mine does well. Winner - You (in your opinion) Me (in my opinion). (This music represents 40-50% of my collection.)
After that, I might get a wild hair in my tush and go for something like, Rammestein - Live at the Max. So, what's going to happen here? Pyrotechnics and wall of sound. Who gives a s*** about refinement and imaging, this is all about power, speed, dynamics and moving copious amounts of air. (this represents another 10-15% of my collection.) Winner - Me, by a landslide.
So, my opinion, based on my broader collection of music is that it's better to have something that's "good" for all of it, rather than have something that's "excellent" for a small portion of it and "terrible" for the rest.
So, what's the response to this comparison?
Well, isn't that convenient! We'll just declare all recorded material that can't be done justice to using small full range flooders irrelevant to the discussion of musical reproduction so we don't have to face the fact that they probably suck at it.
Right now, I'm listening to Rachmaninoff - Rhapsody on a theme of Paganini. I'm sure this would sound really cool on a properly set up omni system. Probably better than it sounds for me right now. Winner - You. (this type of music represents 10-15% of my collection.)
But here's the rub.
Next in the queue is Fourplay - Galaxia. I love this song and when it comes on, I'll probably grab the remote and punch the volume up to nearly THX reference levels. The dynamics will be crisp, drums will punch and bass will be thick and serious.
Now, that recording will sound good on your system, if you appreciate the things your system does well, and it'll sound good on mine, to me, because I appreciate the things mine does well. Winner - You (in your opinion) Me (in my opinion). (This music represents 40-50% of my collection.)
After that, I might get a wild hair in my tush and go for something like, Rammestein - Live at the Max. So, what's going to happen here? Pyrotechnics and wall of sound. Who gives a s*** about refinement and imaging, this is all about power, speed, dynamics and moving copious amounts of air. (this represents another 10-15% of my collection.) Winner - Me, by a landslide.
So, my opinion, based on my broader collection of music is that it's better to have something that's "good" for all of it, rather than have something that's "excellent" for a small portion of it and "terrible" for the rest.
So, what's the response to this comparison?
Well, isn't that convenient! We'll just declare all recorded material that can't be done justice to using small full range flooders irrelevant to the discussion of musical reproduction so we don't have to face the fact that they probably suck at it.
absolutely. And not just that: you must consider the whole replay chain as a single, indivisible system (as in fact it is). Room included, of course.
Splitting the system into different parts and considering them as being basically independent from each other is just plain wrong.
Looking at the performance of any single part of a system isolated from the rest of it will not tell you much about the overall system performance.
Especially when combining tube amps and loudspeakers having
impedance broadly varying with frequency ...
In case of an event at a natural music venue being recorded
"believable" is sufficient for me.
In case of electronic music and studio recordings "close to intended"
would be nice.
Usually we cannot ask the musicians and producers involved, whether
this particular reproduction is close to what they have intended.
Nevertheless i feel, that a speaker/listening-room system that is
"working well", does not have strong genre specific preferences,
and thus should not confine the listener too much due to which
genre can be reproduced in an enjoyful manner.
In my experience in almost all kinds of recorded music, there is
some venue for the sound events made up, even if that venue may be
completely virtual, artificial, inconsistent or even changing from
song to song or within phrases or even between sounds.
It is simply human to have sound within a venue and i guess it is
something to be designed by the producers.
There are few special recordings, like technical test recordings e.g.,
which transport close to "no venue".
There are Rock bands where the venue sounds like sitting in a garage
in front of the amplifiers, where you get even garage like LF modes
and artefacts from the microphones ... but even "garage sound" can
be something that is very cultivated ...
___________
But there is something special to acoustical instruments in real
music venues i'd like to mention:
The reverb is not just "delayed copies" of the direct sound.
Strings but also brass e.g. have directivity patterns changing
with frequency.
The high Q modes in the body of a string instrument do not always
radiate towards the audience.
There are also modes which radiate to the ceiling and to other
directions, depending on the orientation of the instrument.
Thus what comes with the concert hall's reflections is not just a
slightly diffused and delayed version of the original. It also potentially
contains spectral aspects of the instrument - or the ensemble of instruments -
which are "new" and "unseen" in the direct sound so far. The spectral
pattern may not only be "time diffusely repeated" but also in a way
"completed" in the spectral fine structure at least.
This is an aspect which is unique to the interaction of acoustical
intruments with their reverberant environment.
Although it is possible to simulate directivity patterns within artificial
reverb, it is something not common with electroacoustic or even electronic
instruments AFAIK.
Last edited:
Exactly my point in all this. I don't think a single 8" coincident driver in a tiny box firing upwards can convey the intended feeling of a live rock concert, EDM, or any type of electronica, or most types of Jazz / fusion music with electric instruments and spirited drum playing.
They may convey enough musical power for some - who don't have broad musical tastes, but the ending argument can't be to simply dismiss 60 or 70% of all recorded works purely because they aren't in your collection and therefore shouldn't "be considered" when discussing the merits of a good all-around reproduction system.
If they could, the industry at large would have latched onto it and we'd see them all over the place. We can't sit here and think to ourselves that the only reason they haven't is because they're stupid, it's more likely that it's because you can't market a product en masse to 10% of the possible audience.
I would go pinks for pinks against a single pair of 8" Kefs in a 1 cu/ft upfiring box on any deadmau5 / Skrillex / Daft Punk / Knife Party / Wolfgang Gartner / Porter Robinson type play off with absolute confidence.
Mine might not sound as floaty and airy and pretty surround-y playing Mozart chamber music, but people who listen as I do can't be summarily dismissed and considered wrong because we prefer a system that only partially betrays everything rather than completely betrays one half so that the other half is better.
I don't think the concept is limited to a 8 inch coax or fullrange speaker?
Mine will be with four 10" inch woofer per speaker and a small fullrange. If I don't like upfiring they can easily be converted to front firing.
I was under the impression that it was limited to single drivers in small enclosures that are close to the floor..in order to have 5 drivers in the types of flooder I've seen described, (front panel close to the floor) the cabinets would have to be ...pretty large to accommodate all those drivers, right?
Large and flat?
Perhaps what we need is an FCUFS gallery, so we actually know what we're arguing about to begin with.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/199562-ob-omni-experiment.html
Will be tilted much more backward than above picture, and only two front woofers, and supported by two side woofers. All in all the speakers I am currently building looks like above, but a not that tall, almost lying down.
Will be tilted much more backward than above picture, and only two front woofers, and supported by two side woofers. All in all the speakers I am currently building looks like above, but a not that tall, almost lying down.
With regard to the "creation of an image in our own listening space":
I've never heard a recording, in it's entirety, that didn't include some venue effects either real or processed. Even very basic recording techniques without real venue's often have some amount of reverb. that provides this effect. That's not to say such a recording doesn't exist, just that I've not heard one and that I believe such a recording is comparatively rare. I have however heard recordings with sound sources placed into the mix irrespective of venue effects.
Pop hit (US) Des'ree's "You Gotta be" appears to have this quality - her vocals really don't seem to have any venue effects, BUT the rest of it does (if not well done):
des'ree you gotta be[with lyrics] - YouTube
Then there is the issue of image placement within each individual's room. Are the images the same size and proportion? Are they going to be the same distance from each other? Within a "creation in our room" paradigm, this cannot possibly be uniform. Images will vary in size and location because our rooms vary - IF they are creating those images within the confines of our rooms (as required by the "they are here" goal). Moreover, how absurd would it be to have a full orchestra squeezed into a room? Hell, just a full professional drum kit wouldn't make it into a lot of people's listening rooms.
I can understand the desire for accuracy - it's a general goal for most.
However what I can't seem to fathom is the utter incongruity from someone who espouses accuracy to think that a goal of: "creation of an image in our own listening space", could possibly be at all accurate. It's an utterly illogical position to make, UNLESS it's a disingenuous marketing ploy. However, as a subjective preference it makes perfect sense - some people are going to prefer this method of reproduction. It also *might* make sense in a "continuum" of more "here than there" and the degree to which the effect is more easily achieved. Still, NEITHER response has anything to do with being more accurate.