Loudspeaker perception

[Lynn Olson]

This whole discussion kind of surprises me. I've never heard the lower and upper part of the spectrum break apart into two different sets of localizations unless there was a very severe problem with the speakers.

I have met people who just don't "get" stereophonic playback, though. Since it is a learned illusion it doesn't surprise me there are people who just aren't able to learn it, and always hear two sources with no phantom image. These are the people who put one speaker in one corner of the room, the other in the opposite corner, and it sounds just as good - or bad - as normal 50~60 degree stereo. As far as I can tell, stereo always sound incoherent to them.

My experience working with phase-shift matrix quadraphonic systems made me very sensitive to "phasiness", unstable localization, and the size, shape and spatial realism of of the ambient impression. If a speaker has little or no ambient impression, it's one of the first things I notice - yet other people I know don't seem to care about ambient impression at all, and are quite happy to listen to (very expensive) systems with no depth or spatial impression at all.

One my gripes with conical horns is that I don't hear much ambient impression - the sound seems to be all coming right at me, with no sense of hall sound. (I call that "shut-in" sounding.) But I haven't heard many conical horns, so if there are any at the RMAF, I'll make a point of tracking them down. Part of the reason I like the LeCleac'h is that they sound the most spacious of any horn I've heard to date.

[Elias]

Hello,

Originally posted by Lynn Olson
[B]
I have met people who just don't "get" stereophonic playback, though. Since it is a learned illusion it doesn't surprise me there are people who just aren't able to learn it, and always hear two sources with no phantom image.

Or is it just the opposite? One can learn himself out of stereo illusion.

On the other hand if stereo would be correct method of reproduction, everyone would automatically fall into it and hear the original sound even in front of him. Afterall stereo is quite poor method and that's why some cannot consider it as believable illusion of real sound event, thus they hear the speakers instead for example.

My experience working with phase-shift matrix quadraphonic systems made me very sensitive to "phasiness", unstable localization, and the size, shape and spatial realism of of the ambient impression. If a speaker has little or no ambient impression, it's one of the first things I notice - yet other people I know don't seem to care about ambient impression at all, and are quite happy to listen to (very expensive) systems with no depth or spatial impression at all.

I thought quadrophonics never worked well. It does not work even in theory, since the idea of making phantom images 360 degrees around of you is doomed by the fact that pinna localisation will reveal the speakers especially at the sides and behind of you. Some say the whole thing was just a vain attempt of audio industry to sell double as much speakers and amplifiers

For me, ambience is one of the most important things in music listening at home. That is after good music of course

One my gripes with conical horns is that I don't hear much ambient impression - the sound seems to be all coming right at me, with no sense of hall sound. (I call that "shut-in" sounding.) But I haven't heard many conical horns, so if there are any at the RMAF, I'll make a point of tracking them down. Part of the reason I like the LeCleac'h is that they sound the most spacious of any horn I've heard to date.

This is interesting. Do you have an explanation for LeCleac'h being spacious? For what I've seen the plots, it beams very severely. How do you think it helps in spaciousness?

- Elias

[angeloitacare]

This is interesting. Do you have an explanation for LeCleac'h being spacious? For what I've seen the plots, it beams very severely. How do you think it helps in spaciousness?

hi Elias

i cannot answer WHY, but i can confirm and agree on that one with Lynn : i use LeCleach horns now, and the spaciousness, 3D presentation and sound stage is a strength of these horns. I have never got a better result before in this regard, wheter with tractrix, radial, nor multi cell horns.

[Russell Dawkins]

Based on a few recent comments here and elsewhere, I am starting to wonder whether the answer to the question "what is the major factor contributing to good phantom imaging" is lower waveform distortion, since it seems that this type of distortion - not the usually-mentioned flatness of off-axis response - is, by being somewhat random in nature, interpreted as not being part of the "information" but "noise" and thus not part of the acoustic holograph that is the phantom image, loosely speaking.
The hearing mechanism then places the source of this noise at the speaker, and quite rightly.
That's my notion as of today, and I'm stickin' to it!

I'm thinking this may relate to the performance of the conical horns vs the LeCleac'h

[Elias]

Hello,

We need to understand why. It is the only reasonable way to get improvement in things.

Ok, you have compared LeCleac'h with other types of horns and it wins in spaciousness. That only tells something. How about in comparison with other types of radiators than horns?

- Elias

Originally posted by angeloitacare

i cannot answer WHY, but i can confirm and agree on that one with Lynn : i use LeCleach horns now, and the spaciousness, 3D presentation and sound stage is a strength of these horns. I have never got a better result before in this regard, wheter with tractrix, radial, nor multi cell horns.

[markus76]

Lynn, I asked that before but will ask it again in case you missed it: how many people have you met that are not able to hear phantom sources?

Elias, would you be so kind to answer my questions?

Best, Markus

P.S.

If a speaker has little or no ambient impression

That's not a property of the speaker but of the room interacting with the speaker. As every room is different there are much more parameters that need to be taken into account than attributes (btw which?) of a particular speaker.

[Lynn Olson]

Originally posted by markus76
Lynn, I asked that before but will ask it again in case you missed it: how many people have you met that are not able to hear phantom sources?

Best, Markus

Not many - I'd guess maybe four or five or so out of the scores of audiophiles and designers I've known over the last thirty-five years. They frequently have elaborate mono systems, unusual locations for the stereo speakers, and will go on at some length about how mono recordings sound so much better than stereo. It took me a while to realize this was a perceptual thing - like a partially colorblind person not being able to fine-tune a color TV or adjust the colors in Photoshop, while by contrast, a professional in a color-print lab can see subtle color variations most of us don't see.

[markus76]

Were those people able to localize natural sound sources in rooms correctly?

Best, Markus

[Lynn Olson]

Yes, no problem as far as I could tell, although it would be a little hard as an outsider to know what they're perceiving. It was a subtle deficit as far as I could discern - audiophiles seem to differ in their perception of spatiality as well. I suspect it's a mixture of inherent physiology and training, like musical ability.

In addition to actual musical and sonic preferences, I'm pretty sure there are significant underlying perceptual differences between different groups of people. Having grown up in Asia, people do experience the world - what we would call "reality" - in a subtly different way than Westerners do.

[markus76]

Originally posted by Lynn Olson ... it would be a little hard as an outsider to know what they're perceiving.

Wouldn't make it that "esoteric". Let one of them close his eyes, play a sound and tell him to point with his finger in the perceived direction.

Best, Markus