I don't think that is true. In fact I would argue the opposite. Cardiod in the bass is easy, as you suggest, but controlling a directivity narrower than this across a significant portion of the bandwidth is a very extremely difficult task.
The interaction of the loudspeaker and the room reflections is perhaps the single most important topic in loudspeaker design today. There are widely different opinions by highly regarded people - there is no consistant answer across the spectrum of designers. There are lots of studies, but they all have their assumptions and caveates. For example the one just published in AES which appears to contradict many widely held beliefs. I wish that I could follow what they were trying to do, but after reading it I found that I wasn't so sure it meant anything.)
Well this is where you'll arrive after listening
But the point is *understanding* the particular design so that you aren't dependent on that particular design to achieve a similar (and perhaps BETTER) effect.
The IMP doesn't get any "love" because everyone know it will measure like sh!t.
What if a better (or perhaps MUCH better) design could be derived from the key portions of the IMP that make a substantial difference to its presentation?
If it truly is just a matter of reflections (particularly their direction and intensity when compared to the average), then
. BUT you won't have even a remote idea of that without the base-line.(..of course you would have to "expand" on that from there as well, but you still need a very base, base-line to start from.)
But the point is *understanding* the particular design so that you aren't dependent on that particular design to achieve a similar (and perhaps BETTER) effect.
The IMP doesn't get any "love" because everyone know it will measure like sh!t.
What if a better (or perhaps MUCH better) design could be derived from the key portions of the IMP that make a substantial difference to its presentation?
If it truly is just a matter of reflections (particularly their direction and intensity when compared to the average), then
(..of course you would have to "expand" on that from there as well, but you still need a very base, base-line to start from.)
A couple of pages ago I've already said that Behringer vs. Orion is just a sideshow...
As exemplified by this AES paper:
"Many authors report their own ‘perceptual’ effect of a stimulus as globally applicable to others when it is a personal opinion"
True.
But this forum is often concerned with getting *better* sound. (..though of course "better" is relational to the listener.)
With the IMP it's of course very much a matter of "better", because it's not going to be more "accurate".
Personally I'd like "better" (or *even better* than "better") AND more "accurate", and perhaps the opportunity to craft a design that doesn't look like a Star Wars Imperial Class Star Destroyer.
Last edited:
Maybe all this loudspeaker radiation pattern and directivity hypothesis is BS. In reality any modern stereo operating within its limits will present a plausible Auditory Scene.
Yes, I could not follow what the "metric" was. It appeared to be the listeners ability to set the sound playback level consistantly. But I am unclear what this has to do with anything perceptual, or at the very least this metric is wrought with complications.
They quote Toole but yet their entire study was aimed at mixing situations for which Floyds book does not really apply.
All-in-all I was disappointed at my ability to glean anything of use from the text. Either I'm dumb, unknowledgeable about the issues or the writting was obscure.
And hence all "modern loudspeakers" have comparable sound quality (within their limits of course) and present equally desirable presentations - not necessarily the same but all "plausible" and hence "acceptable". Then there is no "right" answer just "different" answers. Based on a lot of experience in this area, those are not my beliefs
Nonsense. I know the room for which my speakers are designed . . . to take it "out of the equation" would be pointless. And impossible . . . the room plays a significant part in creating the sound field which I hear.
The only way I can listen without including the "signature" of the room is with headphones . . .
Changes in directivity do impact our perception, particularly those at higher freq.s.. Quality research with an excellent base-line and proper controls have determined this, and have resulted in a lot of varying technologies. So it's not BS.
Most modern loudspeakers are actually quite "omni" in their presentation, even those that purport to be directional. This includes the IMP, Behringer, and Orion. So while there are differences, by and large they are more similar than different.
"Plausible" is very much a "fuzzy" term. (..so is "Auditory Scene" for that matter..)
We aren't really concerned with "is it plausible or not", we are really more interested in HOW plausible it is, or said better: how COMPELLING it is.
Again, we are interested in achieving "better", otherwise we would just stick with a pair of 50 cent full-range drivers.
Note: "Plausible" in word-use tends to a "yes or no" response, which is nigh-on useless. What's "yes" for some may well be "no" for others. Describing sound reproduction with a description of more or less compelling accepts obvious variances in individual responses.
Last edited:
Hmmmm...
I suspect that there are two modes of our ability to locate sounds in stereo.
- timing
- volume
Assume "perfect" loudspeakers for the next couple of examples, which will be set in a very large field with near-zero noise.
The sound of someone clapping is played, one clap at a time, through the speakers.
So if both speakers play the sound so that it arrives at the listener at the same time, they'll hear that the sound comes from a point between the speakers.
Next, only one speakers plays a clap. The sound is perceived to come from that speaker.
Next, both speakers play, with a short delay between left and right.
The sound could (my suspicion is that this is the case) be perceived to be closer to the side that arrives first.
So we have position perception by volume and time delays.
I suspect the amount on which we rely on each of these will vary person to person, which is why some people love dipoles (where the timing's all over the show, but maybe because of the room excitation, the volume perception is closer) and others can't stand them (I suspect those people rely more on timing than volume).
An illustration of this effect would be as follows:
- sit in front of one speaker of your stereo.
- play some music
- adjust the Balance control so that both speakers can be heard at similar volumes
- is a decent stereo image projected?
Entirely conjecture, I know, but it does seem to explain some real-world results.
Chris
I suspect that there are two modes of our ability to locate sounds in stereo.
- timing
- volume
Assume "perfect" loudspeakers for the next couple of examples, which will be set in a very large field with near-zero noise.
The sound of someone clapping is played, one clap at a time, through the speakers.
So if both speakers play the sound so that it arrives at the listener at the same time, they'll hear that the sound comes from a point between the speakers.
Next, only one speakers plays a clap. The sound is perceived to come from that speaker.
Next, both speakers play, with a short delay between left and right.
The sound could (my suspicion is that this is the case) be perceived to be closer to the side that arrives first.
So we have position perception by volume and time delays.
I suspect the amount on which we rely on each of these will vary person to person, which is why some people love dipoles (where the timing's all over the show, but maybe because of the room excitation, the volume perception is closer) and others can't stand them (I suspect those people rely more on timing than volume).
An illustration of this effect would be as follows:
- sit in front of one speaker of your stereo.
- play some music
- adjust the Balance control so that both speakers can be heard at similar volumes
- is a decent stereo image projected?
Entirely conjecture, I know, but it does seem to explain some real-world results.
Chris
If your standards are low enough.
And depending on what you're listening to. Who knows, after all, what a "plausible Auditory Scene" of Justin Beeber sounds like . . .
If you have some sense of what a real orchestra in a reasonably decent hall sounds like a couple box loudspeakers in the typical living room is not likely to fool you . . .
"It has been remarked that if one selects his own components, builds his own enclosure, and is convinced that he has made a wise choice of design, then his own loudspeaker sounds better to him than does anyone else's loudspeaker." - Beranek, L.L., Acoustics
very naive thinking
wish I could do that
but yes, I do have a friend who always believe he does everything 100% correct
another friend always believe he is right, and the others are wrong
If you have no sense of what a real orchestra in a reasonably decent hall sounds like a couple box loudspeakers in your living room might just fool you . . .
So why don't you just go buy a couple cheap loudspeakers and be happy? Or save even more and just read about them . . .
I refer you to the quote I presented in post #606
Except that I didn't get the reference then and I still don't. I mean I understand the quote - and agree with it - but I don't see its relevance to what I am saying. There are people who do work that is not based on their own personal opinions even though that vast majority do quite the opposite.