Yeah, thanks for that. I know you prob feel 'hounded' but I wanted to clear up the (reasonable) suspicion you had.
Edit: BTW, does that mean that Pano shouldn't be taken too seriously too, or is it okay that he uses a man-sized speaker to do the job ...,
Cheers,
This, at least, is a quasi technical point that is fair enough to raise. It also allows *us* to discuss where you are coming from now that we know from where you start.
For many reasons I'd say the simple answer is almost completely yes. By definition, I'd suggest that anything other than a man sized speaker will not be able to give the illusion you both speak of.
You'd agree that any sort of distortion would tend to destroy this illusion, well that applies to the actual sound emission with it's distortions that can vary with many things, not least volume (an essential part of creating a life like result).
I'm afraid that no-one here would think that a ten cent tweeter and a fifty cent woofer would have enough intrinsic quality to do the job.
I must admit I have lost track of what is actually being 'argued' at this point! Nonetheless whichever particular cul de sac we are in, for the most part I'd say that I have 'it'. Unlike you tho frank I get it by addressing the very thing you ignore, the speaker and make that as correct as possible. That and the room.
To answer your size question from my experience, that I use four eighteens to handle the bass, and the mids up to 800 are handled by tens, my answer most assuredly is yes, you do need man sized speakers to do it (spose to be complete and truthful I have to say they CAN do it..I doubt a four inch 'woofer' can)
In my LP I do get what (I think) you and pano have been talking about, what I don't get is the ability to walk around the speaker and have it remain unchanged.
Not a very great failing in my mind if I want to sit and listen to music. Which I rarely do nowadays! Practicing piano takes up all of my spare time now.
This effect is of course extremely dependent on the recording, however in my experience I will say once you have you system 'sorted' you should find (to your great delight) that there are actually many better recordings (not talking audiophile fluff either) in general than the moaning audiophiles would have you believe. My suspicion is that what these audiophiles are ACTUALLY whinging about, even if they don't recognise it, is the limitations of their own system, hence the 'rare' recordings that sound good on them haha.
forgot to ask frank, out of curiosity, which was the system you felt was good at the hi fi show? (for non aus, this was the first hi fi show held in sydney for at least two decades! If you like that sort of thing you'd agree we are poorly served here. Population wise aus is quite a small country)
I was bored after the first hour, wtf am I doing here??!
I am unable to say WHY I have got *it*, and so could not really engage in the technical discussion to date, but one observation I might be able to make maybe is related to the under 700 question.
I have noticed that whenever the bass is improved the ambiance too is improved, even when I have only addressed things under 200 hz say. It seems to me that the bass is a 'carrier wave' for the rest of the spectrum, get it right (or get it better) and that allows the rest to flower as it were.
That improving the bass without touching any other part of the frequency spectrum (which I can do as it is active) improves the other part of the spectrum says to me at least that to 'ignore' any aspect under 700 as fraught with danger.
There has been suggestions that 'it's not that under 700 is negligable, but when you are prioritising budget better bang for the buck comes from above 700' which may be true.
But equally it is true I feel that the last frontier needs to be addressed to get to the promised land. (wherever that last frontier is for you I guess) It might also be true that once you have the above 700 sorted it allows you to address below as it is then capable of revealing those improvements.
Anyway, without the solid bass foundation I think you have no chance of getting this goal being talked about.
I was bored after the first hour, wtf am I doing here??!
I am unable to say WHY I have got *it*, and so could not really engage in the technical discussion to date, but one observation I might be able to make maybe is related to the under 700 question.
I have noticed that whenever the bass is improved the ambiance too is improved, even when I have only addressed things under 200 hz say. It seems to me that the bass is a 'carrier wave' for the rest of the spectrum, get it right (or get it better) and that allows the rest to flower as it were.
That improving the bass without touching any other part of the frequency spectrum (which I can do as it is active) improves the other part of the spectrum says to me at least that to 'ignore' any aspect under 700 as fraught with danger.
There has been suggestions that 'it's not that under 700 is negligable, but when you are prioritising budget better bang for the buck comes from above 700' which may be true.
But equally it is true I feel that the last frontier needs to be addressed to get to the promised land. (wherever that last frontier is for you I guess) It might also be true that once you have the above 700 sorted it allows you to address below as it is then capable of revealing those improvements.
Anyway, without the solid bass foundation I think you have no chance of getting this goal being talked about.
Just a quick answer on that, because I was thinking of asking you the same question ...
First of all, check out my blog; I did my personal take there of what I heard on the day.
Caveats of course, systems in shows go up and down in quality depending upon everything, but probably the system that hit the mark the best when I heard it was the Bryston monoblocks driving big Dynaudios, from music server source. 1000W into 8ohms, this had the muscle, and cleanness, to deliver true dynamics. I got the bloke to put on something with a bit of oomph, so got a drum solo which was probably the best I've heard from a domestic system, bite and kick like the real deal delivers -- beyond what my poor setup could muster,
...Otherwise, the Magnepans from server, not CD; everything by the National Audio Group was in a good, or better zone; the Technical Brain and CH Precision showed good tone and transparency in spite of the mess in the room ...
Oh, I thought it was something really "magical". I get this in my large reference theater/mixing room all of the time with a well recorded soundtrack.
(This was in the demo room of one of the biggest musicians's shops in Sydney, using their source chain. The overload LED was flickering away fairly constantly but the chappie doing the demo didn't seem concerned; then, the left channel just died with no signs of anything happening, the fellow spent about 10 minutes resetting, changing leads, swapping channels ... the speaker was dead, probably had blown an internal fuse.
Not a good look for a $2000 monitor ...)
Edit: can all of that!! My brain glitched, the brand that croaked was Mackie, not Genelec, apologies to all ...
No problem. The only reason I questioned you on this is because there are literally thousands of Genelec monitors at work in post production studios and studio post production facilities in Hollywood. I have never heard anyone complain about the failure rate of these monitors which is why they are so popular here.
Nicely stated ... so you do have some pretty good experience of where it can get to.
Yes, distortion is what the game is all about, and that's the level of distortion at the moment that the sound emerges from the driver. And, why I've come to a solution in the particular direction that I have is just pure circumstances, if I had happened to have got the 'breakthrough' with big, efficient speakers I probably would have followed the same path as Pano, and yourself. But that was not the case, it happened with a Perreaux 2150B, which had enough grunt and cleanness after some fixups, and ordinary B&W DM10 bookshelfs; so my course was set,
.So, conventional speakers, and drivers, can do it, but they have to be driven by very, very well sorted out electronics. Anything else, and the sound hasn't got a chance of getting there. I appreciate that having plenty of cone surface area, or horn technology makes it a lot easier to get going, but my perspective is that that method works because the electronics are having a very easy time of it, the power supplies in the components are not having to work hard. Which dramatically reduces the disturbing distortion that marks conventional hifi.
Okay, my speakers aren't much, but the amps are working hard, running to the rails without falling over, or adding to that type of distortion, and that is what makes the imaging happen ...
Just a quick answer on that, because I was thinking of asking you the same question ...
First of all, check out my blog; I did my personal take there of what I heard on the day.
Caveats of course, systems in shows go up and down in quality depending upon everything, but probably the system that hit the mark the best when I heard it was the Bryston monoblocks driving big Dynaudios, from music server source. 1000W into 8ohms, this had the muscle, and cleanness, to deliver true dynamics. I got the bloke to put on something with a bit of oomph, so got a drum solo which was probably the best I've heard from a domestic system, bite and kick like the real deal delivers -- beyond what my poor setup could muster,
Otherwise, the Magnepans from server, not CD; everything by the National Audio Group was in a good, or better zone; the Technical Brain and CH Precision showed good tone and transparency in spite of the mess in the room ...
I am going to guess the amplifier is the Bryston 28B-SST. I purchased seven of them to drive my Dunlavy SC-V's in my multichannel music mixing room at my post production facility. I can say aside from hearing the top of the line VTL amps, this is the best amp by far I have ever heard.
This was a purely visual setup, sound was never mentioned at all. Done in the 70's if I recall correctly, some very interesting ideas were combined ...
First of all, very high frame rate, no idea what it was now, perhaps 10 times the normal to pull a figure out of the air, so the footage in those days would have taken using slow mo; the thing was that there was no blur recorded or evident, even in a fast moving vehicle, say.
Next, very specialised projector lens technology; they assessed that the perception of flicker between frames, the transition, gives the game away that it's fake. So a very interesting rotating, donut style lens -- imagine a very big spring washer made of glass -- did the job by running a single frame around the loop of the "washer", until it hits the break in the loop; the next frame is then in the exact spot to instantaneously match the projection of the previous frame ... no flicker!
Of course, very high resolution, and top notch film grain characteristics, all the usuals there ...
Finally, projected in a vertical, "Hollywood" bowl setup, IMAX taken to the next level, where the sidereal vision still picks up only the imagery of the film, the screen curves around you ... something like a planetarium ceiling tipped upright.
This means that the visible information is close to 100% immersive, a visual cocoon, no reference points to pick the "trick".
They did a test shoot of inside a car careering out of control down a steep road, and people were screaming, passing out, having hysterics, the works ...
Getting the deep bass 100% would be the icing on the cake, but I don't miss it; if I disconnect the subwoofer, so then the response below about 150Hz is extremely ho-hum, it's obviously noticeable, but it doesn't stop one's ear quickly acclimatising. I've done this at times, and played my wife's favourite recordings, and she hasn't picked it ...
It's pretty hard work getting really low distortion at those low frequencies, the drivers have to be really superb to do it properly. I feel that a lot of what people react to when they like or don't like the bass are the different spectrums of bass distortion that every setup produces.
This was a purely visual setup, sound was never mentioned at all. Done in the 70's if I recall correctly, some very interesting ideas were combined ...
First of all, very high frame rate, no idea what it was now, perhaps 10 times the normal to pull a figure out of the air, so the footage in those days would have taken using slow mo; the thing was that there was no blur recorded or evident, even in a fast moving vehicle, say.
Next, very specialised projector lens technology; they assessed that the perception of flicker between frames, the transition, gives the game away that it's fake. So a very interesting rotating, donut style lens -- imagine a very big spring washer made of glass -- did the job by running a single frame around the loop of the "washer", until it hits the break in the loop; the next frame is then in the exact spot to instantaneously match the projection of the previous frame ... no flicker!
Of course, very high resolution, and top notch film grain characteristics, all the usuals there ...
Finally, projected in a vertical, "Hollywood" bowl setup, IMAX taken to the next level, where the sidereal vision still picks up only the imagery of the film, the screen curves around you ... something like a planetarium ceiling tipped upright.
This means that the visible information is close to 100% immersive, a visual cocoon, no reference points to pick the "trick".
They did a test shoot of inside a car careering out of control down a steep road, and people were screaming, passing out, having hysterics, the works ...
This sounds like Douglas Trumbull's Showscan format. 65mm print shown in 70mm at a frame rate of 60fps. I am VERY familar with this format as I have seen every Showscan movie every shown via their Showscan theater in LA before it was closed and sold to Regal theaters. I loved this format as much as I liked IMAX filmed based system.
The interesting thing is my reference theater strongly resembles a Showscan theater in design. I use a curved woven acoustically transparent 2:35:1 screen that stretches from wall to wall much like the Showscan screen. I got the idea to design my theater this way from visiting the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood, and visiting the Showscan theater in Culver City on numerous occasions.
You're right, looks like the fellow who would have been behind it! I read an article in the Electronics Australia about it then, which would have been a snapshot of the thinking at that moment. So, they decided to go ahead with it it seems, perhaps they cut back on the frame rate to get the balance right in being convincing but not too convincing.
And, it's still evolving! Yes, Showscan Digital, native 120fps would you believe ... do you like it ...? There are smarts in it to downsample very smoothly to 24fps, and do that dynamically, as the director see fit: so, slow, boring stuff in 24, then rev up to 120 for the quick bits, and then back again ...
Showscan Digital from Douglas Trumbull - YouTube
And, it's still evolving! Yes, Showscan Digital, native 120fps would you believe ... do you like it ...?
There are smarts in it to downsample very smoothly to 24fps, and do that dynamically, as the director see fit: so, slow, boring stuff in 24, then rev up to 120 for the quick bits, and then back again ...Showscan Digital from Douglas Trumbull - YouTube
Actually, they doubled the frame rate from the film version of Showscan. Now that everything is digital, you can adopt the frame rate to any projector system in the field.
And, it's still evolving! Yes, Showscan Digital, native 120fps would you believe ... do you like it ...?
Showscan Digital from Douglas Trumbull - YouTube
Showscan Digital has been around for several years. They have a theater at the Universal walk of fame that I have been to several times to see short Showscan films that have been digitized from their film based counterparts. This is actually a 4D system as well, with moving seats, 3D audio, 3D movie, and they can add wind and mists of water as well.
The problem is not the projection system, it the production system and its costs. Showscan movies and shorts are pretty expensive to produce as it requires a huge amount of in camera and external storage because the images are moving so quick, and using up a lot of storage space. You also have to spend a lot of money on making the sets look as real as possible, because the resolution of the system will show everything you have done on the cheap. Jackson found that out first hand with The Hobbit. CG shots were fine, but live action shots showed lots of makeup lines, the edges of prosthetics, and just how fake and flat sets look at such high resolution. Mind you they only shot at 48fps, not 120fps.
The technology has been here, now the artist crafts have to catch up(I am referring to set makers, modelers, makeup artists and the like)
It's interesting the parallels here with high res sound, worrying about storage and download time, and whether the microphones are actually picking up anything worthwhile. Obviously in video higher resolution works, but to me it seems part of the difference is that the standard system, in film, is just barely good enough, so there is plenty of room for improvement.
I don't get the Hobbit problem: if makeup lines, prosthetics are revealed in action sequences then surely that should be the case in normal motion scenes, closeups also. Why would the extra speed make a difference here?
Edit: Our viewing sophistication has certainly improved, we obviously evolve in our ability to pick up "flaws". Looking at old, relatively well made movies it's now so obvious how the lighting was done, the shadow lines on the walls are far too well defined much of the time, and in conflict.
I don't get the Hobbit problem: if makeup lines, prosthetics are revealed in action sequences then surely that should be the case in normal motion scenes, closeups also. Why would the extra speed make a difference here?
Edit: Our viewing sophistication has certainly improved, we obviously evolve in our ability to pick up "flaws". Looking at old, relatively well made movies it's now so obvious how the lighting was done, the shadow lines on the walls are far too well defined much of the time, and in conflict.
Last edited:
That's also my experience. We want to listen to large room acoustics within an acoustically small room. This requires the acoustic effects of the small room have to be attenuated.
This is challenging at lower frequencies where modes dominate what is heard. These modal problems aren't restricted just to the region below the Schroeder frequency. In acoustics there are no on-off states, everything happens gradually. Modal problems become insignificant at higher frequencies but they don't suddenly stop at a certain frequency. In my experience modal problems can be a significant factor for the first few hundred Hertz.
Long modal decay needs to be addressed as much as frequency response errors caused by the room. Even more important than achieving a flat frequency response is to remove frequency response distortions that affect only one channel but not the other. Such errors will distort interaural signals which causes spurious localization cues. Pano's sound files did demonstrate the effect.
If all these problems are addressed, localization will be good and it's just a matter of first reflection levels and angle if the speakers disappear and a spacious auditory scene is heard. I was able to get there with very different speaker concepts having very different levels of distortion.
By the way, I think it's not just the ratio of direct sound to reflections that determines the perceived spaciousness but also their absolute level.
10k in a shop is not much.. on the second hand market, it's a lot. in DIY, it's a fortune!
If you are smart and skilled you can well get high end system for that, including room treatment.. and dinner with the wife!
So what exactly would we build? Isn't that what this discussion was all about?
So what exactly would we build? Isn't that what this discussion was all about?
A speaker with a highly asymmetrical polar pattern that is constant from top to bottom.
