Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Multi-Way

Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 18th March 2013, 03:15 AM   #1951
diyAudio Member
 
Kindhornman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Los Angeles, California
Murphy,
You have the right idea, but I am sorry but the ipod thing I just can't do that! Earbuds and MP3 sound just bothers me and then I can't listen, the enjoyment of just listening is gone. But when I am in the car I could care less about the quality, then it is just about the song and I just listen to the music. I will roll up the windows though,,,,,,,,
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th March 2013, 04:30 AM   #1952
fas42 is offline fas42  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
fas42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NSW, Australia
Blog Entries: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by murphythecat8 View Post
I dont want to be rude, but even my pc logitech speakers gives me enough to be able to follow the music and to appreciate it. If anyone cannot appreciate music wihtout a goiod system, you have a serious problem.
My brain have fun with ipod buds, no problem. This audiophile thing is not true. It does not allow me to follow better the music, its just more appreciable, but it doesnt bring another dimension to the music, this is just us wanting to beleive that all our effort is worth it. Those details, those exact timbre are not important at all.

...

okay, you can just forget all that I said, it wasnt meant for you. but damn this hobby was detrimental for me for too long, and im still trying to not let myself think about the sound, just listen to the ******* song, and thats hard, and thats suck. I probably should have never went into this. even if mys system is really good sounding I mean the sound is so good that I get distracted by how powerful the sound is, whatever!
Murphy, I basically agree with everything you say. I have no trouble listening to a sh!tty car radio if the song is turning me on, or the PC monitors. Or even a conventional hifi system doing its thing. For quite awhile some years ago I gave tweaking away, and just listened to my system playing at the same level of quality as many setups do. And it was a very pleasant experience, most recordings sounded "nice" and I was happy enough with that. But it wasn't the real deal: I couldn't put on a more "difficult" recording, nor could I wind up the volume to realistic levels, without finding the sound very "hifi-ish". So what I am talking about here is going to the next level; if you've never heard it happen that's fine, but once you have you can never forget it, it will remain in the back of your mind, as Pano indicates.

So, if you're totally comfortable with what you have then there is no reason to change course; but on the other hand, people should not be allowed to declaim that normal "hifi" is "as good as it gets". Because, it just ain't so ...

Frank

Last edited by fas42; 18th March 2013 at 04:33 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th March 2013, 04:42 AM   #1953
ScottG is offline ScottG  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: US
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundtrackmixer View Post

..I don't listen to headphones, I buy really good speakers. Binaural is not as good with speakers as with headphones..

But you won't get better than binaural - it's fundamentally correct, which is not something you can say about any other format.

Binaural is in fact "state of the art". Why not promote this format instead of multi-channel? Multi-channel will likely never approach, let alone exceed binaural.

It really has only two deficits: single listener (headphone), and lack of tactile sensation (headphone). The single listener part can easily be transferred to multiple people simultaneously, and the tactile sensation can largely be compensated for with varying tactile transducers. Only for very few people will a generic dummy head (profile) recording cause problems.

The most amazing part is that serious listening (as opposed to casual listening), is performed by most of the world's population ON HEADPHONES. Listening room loudspeaker playback (stereo or multi-channel) by comparison doesn't even "rate" - it's more of an antiquated luxury.

Further - a standard head model goes a very long way to achieving uniformity when compared to any other recording techniques.

-so if you really are concerned with pushing the state of the art forward (for music), then you are promoting the wrong format.



As for my experiences with multi-channel - it's possible that I haven't heard the best the format is capable of, in fact given a wide scope I'd guarantee it.

I have however heard rather excellent multi-channel, including DTS HD Master Audio demo discs. Again, results as mentioned. Frontal expansion just isn't as wide as the rear with more "they are here" speaker setups..

Why might synthesizing the space rather than just capturing it and presenting it naturally? Well,

1st: The best synthetic surround I've heard has been from capturing the space (not simply a dimensional/material construct), and

2nd: In the context of a multi-channel recording - just how do you capture the sound and how is that presented more naturally? To whom is it more natural?
__________________
perspective is everything

Last edited by ScottG; 18th March 2013 at 04:46 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th March 2013, 04:51 AM   #1954
diyAudio Member
 
murphythecat8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Somewhere in Quebec
Quote:
Originally Posted by fas42 View Post
Murphy, I basically agree with everything you say. I have no trouble listening to a sh!tty car radio if the song is turning me on, or the PC monitors. Or even a conventional hifi system doing its thing. For quite awhile some years ago I gave tweaking away, and just listened to my system playing at the same level of quality as many setups do. And it was a very pleasant experience, most recordings sounded "nice" and I was happy enough with that. But it wasn't the real deal: I couldn't put on a more "difficult" recording, nor could I wind up the volume to realistic levels, without finding the sound very "hifi-ish". So what I am talking about here is going to the next level; if you've never heard it happen that's fine, but once you have you can never forget it, it will remain in the back of your mind, as Pano indicates.

So, if you're totally comfortable with what you have then there is no reason to change course; but on the other hand, people should not be allowed to declaim that normal "hifi" is "as good as it gets". Because, it just ain't so ...

Frank
hey.,well i might not have experience the best, but the tannoy monitor red 15 inch of my daddy is suppose to be in the best, and my system almost does that.. but god dam, you got me interested here and I do not accept it anymore. I jused to love music more before I get into hifi. Why do you want to listen to real volume? isnt this a obsession? I love to crank my new 3 way. I love everything about the killer sound it recreate. I mena, after building my 3 way, I was like, ohhh thats what you guys are talking about all day long . I now understand your passion because yes, it sound amazing, and its total new experience for me at least, to listen to music thrue my speakers.
dont you guys feel its a addiction more then a hobby?
dont you guys realize how much stress this thing can bring in our lives?
How much consentions are we willing to accept in order to get to "that" experience your describing?
Dude, just eat some shroom, your system will sound so good, that you will wonder why in sober life, you care so much. On shroom, my system sound so good that I cry at my ridiculous behavior to want to acheive a better sound!

I just hope that you guys are able to appreciate the amazing sound you guys already enjoying. Most of you im sure are always never happy enough, always thinking about it in the back of your head.
but I know I will eventually get to your point. once everypart of my system will be top notch, the next step is room correction ect.
anyways
__________________
Kettel, Dinosaur Jr., Gil Scott Heron, Coltrane, Miles, Jimi hendrix, Zappa,Wisp, L Tristano, Aphex Twin, Wisp, Jon Hopkins, Monk, early DMB, Van Morrison. EC designs SD1 SD Player/ Sl-1200 with DL103-> Art0 Class T->/ Three-way/ JB Continuum/ HD-650
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th March 2013, 05:08 AM   #1955
fas42 is offline fas42  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
fas42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NSW, Australia
Blog Entries: 9
Well, I hope, I really do, that things can advance to the point where top notch sound is just standard fare, just taken for granted, any conventional system will have it as part of the package. But it isn't so at the moment, which is why
Quote:
Listening room loudspeaker playback (stereo or multi-channel) by comparison doesn't even "rate" - it's more of an antiquated luxury.
is a has-been for most, it just doesn't perform.

If you want to know why the "addicted" people do it, go and watch some of the broadcasts of the last Olympic Games on a quality, calibrated, 1080p 60" digital screen, nice and close, for an hour, then go and watch the same material on a rough and ready, ghosting, 80's CRT 25" screen at the normal distance one used to watch TV. And be told you can never watch anything but that quality of broadcasting ever again ...

Frank
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th March 2013, 05:18 AM   #1956
dewardh is offline dewardh  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by fas42 View Post
And be told you can never watch anything but that quality of broadcasting ever again ...
Well so much for all those silly old movies . . . anybody up for a High Def 3D Casablanca remake?
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th March 2013, 06:06 AM   #1957
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottG View Post
But you won't get better than binaural - it's fundamentally correct, which is not something you can say about any other format.

Binaural is in fact "state of the art". Why not promote this format instead of multi-channel? Multi-channel will likely never approach, let alone exceed binaural.

It really has only two deficits: single listener (headphone), and lack of tactile sensation (headphone). The single listener part can easily be transferred to multiple people simultaneously, and the tactile sensation can largely be compensated for with varying tactile transducers. Only for very few people will a generic dummy head (profile) recording cause problems.
What if those deficits are game changers for me. And what if something artificial and non-accurate like tactile transducers is not better than the real tactile response from speakers for me? Then your comment is subjective and isolated to your experience, which is not mine.

Quote:
The most amazing part is that serious listening (as opposed to casual listening), is performed by most of the world's population ON HEADPHONES. Listening room loudspeaker playback (stereo or multi-channel) by comparison doesn't even "rate" - it's more of an antiquated luxury.
Via two channel iTunes, not binaural recordings. Don't misrepresent the fact here, you cannot fool me.

Quote:
Further - a standard head model goes a very long way to achieving uniformity when compared to any other recording techniques.
So where are those standard headphone, and the standards for mixing on them? They don't exist, which makes this comment irrelevant in reality.

Quote:
-so if you really are concerned with pushing the state of the art forward (for music), then you are promoting the wrong format.
Then let me ask why is there FAR more 5.1 music tracks in the market than binarual ones? And let's be honest here(instead of disengenous), headphone listening now adays is based off of two channel iTunes, not binaural. So lets not pretend the masses are searching for a high quality playback via Binaural recordings. That would be untruthful at best.

Quote:
As for my experiences with multi-channel - it's possible that I haven't heard the best the format is capable of, in fact given a wide scope I'd guarantee it.
How can you come to the opinion that Binarual is better than multichannel without actually comparing the two at simular levels? This is nothing more than subjective opinion outside any actual test..right? Your experience does not equal mine, so how can you speak for me?

Quote:
I have however heard rather excellent multi-channel, including DTS HD Master Audio demo discs. Again, results as mentioned. Frontal expansion just isn't as wide as the rear with more "they are here" speaker setups..
Then all I can say to this is the system you heard it on was miscalibrated, and further correlates the idea you have not heard the best that multichannel can deliver. Sorry, as a person that has, I must brush aside your comments as nothing more than inexperinced conjecture. That may work for you, but not for me.

Quote:
Why might synthesizing the space rather than just capturing it and presenting it naturally? Well,

1st: The best synthetic surround I've heard has been from capturing the space (not simply a dimensional/material construct), and
Then the basis of your argument is confused and incorrect. Read the meaning of synthetic, it cannot be simular to a discrete capture, it has to be manufactured in some way, which is not natural at all.

Quote:
2nd: In the context of a multi-channel recording - just how do you capture the sound and how is that presented more naturally? To whom is it more natural?
If you cannot answer these basic questions, then there is no point in discussing this issue with you - you just won't get it. If you have never heard multichannel music done right, then your question is shallow and quite frankly naive(no offense). If you have not heard a high resolution multichannel done right, then there is no context to this question at all. You are just throwing crap at a wall, and seeing what stays or falls. How inefficent.....
__________________
Soundtrackmixer - M.P.S.E/AES/SMPTE member

Last edited by Soundtrackmixer; 18th March 2013 at 06:18 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th March 2013, 07:20 AM   #1958
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Quote:
Originally Posted by john k... View Post
So what. It's art at that end. Do you want to standardize art? Listen to Pink Floyd. Most of their recordings involve manipulation of stereo as a medium. They exploited it as part of their art.
I hear that argument pretty often when I caim that standards would be a great idea. I don't want to limit the art, I want it to be experienced by everyone as intended by the artist. Does color calibration of a film camera or a TV screen standardize the art of film making? I would think the opposite is true.
__________________
Markus
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th March 2013, 07:33 AM   #1959
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottG View Post
Binaural is in fact "state of the art". Why not promote this format instead of multi-channel? Multi-channel will likely never approach, let alone exceed binaural.
Object based audio is coming and terms like "multichannel" or "binaural" as separate and incompatible techniques won't be relevant anymore. People can chose any renderer they like, even if it's two dipole speakes
__________________
Markus

Last edited by markus76; 18th March 2013 at 07:37 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th March 2013, 08:22 AM   #1960
ScottG is offline ScottG  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: US
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundtrackmixer View Post
What if those deficits are game changers for me. And what if something artificial and non-accurate like tactile transducers is not better than the real tactile response from speakers for me? Then your comment is subjective and isolated to your experience, which is not mine.
Via two channel iTunes, not binaural recordings. Don't misrepresent the fact here, you cannot fool me.
So where are those standard headphone, and the standards for mixing on them? They don't exist, which makes this comment irrelevant in reality.
Then let me ask why is there FAR more 5.1 music tracks in the market than binarual ones? And let's be honest here(instead of disengenous), headphone listening now adays is based off of two channel iTunes, not binaural. So lets not pretend the masses are searching for a high quality playback via Binaural recordings. That would be untruthful at best.
How can you come to the opinion that Binarual is better than multichannel without actually comparing the two at simular levels? This is nothing more than subjective opinion outside any actual test..right? Your experience does not equal mine, so how can you speak for me?
Then all I can say to this is the system you heard it on was miscalibrated, and further correlates the idea you have not heard the best that multichannel can deliver. Sorry, as a person that has, I must brush aside your comments as nothing more than inexperinced conjecture. That may work for you, but not for me.
Then the basis of your argument is confused and incorrect. Read the meaning of synthetic, it cannot be simular to a discrete capture, it has to be manufactured in some way, which is not natural at all.
If you cannot answer these basic questions, then there is no point in discussing this issue with you - you just won't get it. If you have never heard multichannel music done right, then your question is shallow and quite frankly naive(no offense). If you have not heard a high resolution multichannel done right, then there is no context to this question at all. You are just throwing crap at a wall, and seeing what stays or falls.


How inefficent.....
Indeed. Just how much time did all that puffing take?
__________________
perspective is everything
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WTB Linkwitz Orions jrling Swap Meet 0 13th March 2010 05:26 PM
Finally finished my orions srfranci Multi-Way 5 24th July 2009 11:29 AM
My week with the Orions, or 'why do we bother' cuibono Multi-Way 56 26th October 2008 12:51 AM
Can the Dynaudio C1 be beaten by a DIY design obiwan Multi-Way 16 22nd July 2007 10:19 AM
How hard to clone the Orions? Chaucer Multi-Way 46 8th July 2005 02:01 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:25 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2