what I find amusing is that most do not realise just how much processing goes on in a recording.
a definition of audiophile is prob a subject of an entirely new thread
the people I had in mind with the mantra of 'I want a cello to sound like a cello' use, as I said, a five inch two way. So lets forget about a five inch 'woofer' being able to reproduce the scale of even a cello, that they also have no idea that how real it is (the recording and absence of any processing) kinda makes their 'reference' a can of worms.
No, in the end it always come down to 'I like it" which is fair enough. But just don't bring any any 'technical' claims (my cello recording is 'real' and my system duplicates it) to back up your claim. Have you even taken the first step to see if it IS a real recording?
All those endless discussions about what is best and what is right. Why don't you guys simply try for yourself to find meaningful answers by doing your own experiments?
A simpel experiment that can quite an eye opener: add a second pair of speakers at ±60° (±45° is fine too). Then send L and R to those new "wide" speakers. Delay the signal between 2 and 20ms. Level difference between those speakers and the mains should be 5dB or less.
Marvel how "real" the auditory scene sounds. That's the whole magic of wide dispersion speakers: reflections from other locations than the direct sound.
The problem is that there's now probably too much energy in the room which masks low level details in the recording.
So the trick is to add single strong first reflections while keeping the level of the diffuse sound field low. All the talking about Orion vs. Behringer is really just a sideshow.
A simpel experiment that can quite an eye opener: add a second pair of speakers at ±60° (±45° is fine too). Then send L and R to those new "wide" speakers. Delay the signal between 2 and 20ms. Level difference between those speakers and the mains should be 5dB or less.
Marvel how "real" the auditory scene sounds. That's the whole magic of wide dispersion speakers: reflections from other locations than the direct sound.
The problem is that there's now probably too much energy in the room which masks low level details in the recording.
So the trick is to add single strong first reflections while keeping the level of the diffuse sound field low. All the talking about Orion vs. Behringer is really just a sideshow.
Last edited:
+1The most intelligent post I've read in this forum. Floyd Toole also reached a similar conclusion.
Hopefully you realise that SL. himself proceeded to buy the Behringer and do his own comparison.
You forget to mention there is not even a mention of the ABX double blind test on the website, nor a link to the AES report. Everything posted is complete subjective bunk.
Instead of a critical, non-biased rebuttal, we're asked to open our wallets and believe in magic. No thanks!
Perhaps I came into the discussion a little late, but I do want an instrument to sound like an instrument but am not so short sited as to think that the speaker is the only important part. We obviously have to rely on the expertise of the recording engineer.
A 2-way speaker with 5inch woofer is never going to be perfect, but as with most things you have to compromise. Some people have to make do with a 2-way due to cost, the wife, neighbours.
I to find uncorroborated assertions really annoying and like to see facts and research, at work we call this "chuvvin onions up chickens ***** (bums)". "Supposedly my mates mums aunty says that chuvving an onion up a chickens bum helps to cleanse it when it's cooking" That sort of thing.
A 2-way speaker with 5inch woofer is never going to be perfect, but as with most things you have to compromise. Some people have to make do with a 2-way due to cost, the wife, neighbours.
I to find uncorroborated assertions really annoying and like to see facts and research, at work we call this "chuvvin onions up chickens ***** (bums)". "Supposedly my mates mums aunty says that chuvving an onion up a chickens bum helps to cleanse it when it's cooking" That sort of thing.
what I find amusing is that most do not realise just how much processing goes on in a recording.
a definition of audiophile is prob a subject of an entirely new thread
the people I had in mind with the mantra of 'I want a cello to sound like a cello' use, as I said, a five inch two way. So lets forget about a five inch 'woofer' being able to reproduce the scale of even a cello, that they also have no idea that how real it is (the recording and absence of any processing) kinda makes their 'reference' a can of worms.
No, in the end it always come down to 'I like it" which is fair enough. But just don't bring any any 'technical' claims (my cello recording is 'real' and my system duplicates it) to back up your claim. Have you even taken the first step to see if it IS a real recording?
Yes, it is! But the problem is also the room, not just the speaker, you cannot just pop a dipole in a modern living room, fairly empty nowadays and expect the best experience, we are giving away our big book and cd shelves, the decors tend to become more and more minimalistic.. That's audio terrorism!
A highly furnished room should be enough, otherwise it does not work, but that's true for any speaker, so..
From what I understand, halls are often constructed in such way that the reflexions come from the sides and not the center (including ceiling), why would not the same apply for stereo?
We do need reflexions, but good ones only.. Not too strong, not too close, and from the sides only.
Floyd Toole is an outspoken advocate of wide dispersion and strong early reflections, and if I'm not mistaking he doesn't acknowledge that you give up clarity and imaging by allowing strong early reflections. It seems his research somehow undermines these aspects of sound reproduction; I think too much emphasis is put on spaciousness. In my opinion both wide dispersion and narrow dispersion speakers have their place and I thus find it unfortunate that the Harman way of testing disadvantages the latter.
Hey, I think it's time to end your solo crusade. SL does what he wants, as you can believe who you want..
Boy, life can be so unfair sometimes..
I believe a dipole can work but it requires lots of acoustic room treatment to sound really good. I'd prefer a more intelligent speaker/room design.
simple! because you can toe in the speaker such as you only get the reflected wave from the back sides, much later than you would get from the sides which you can now put in the dipole null, so you increase the ITD gap! But you haven't thought of that, have you? Not talking of power response..
Last edited:
Some speakers require it more than others. In general the wider the dispersion, the more dominant the room becomes and thus the more important to get the acoustics right. High directivity speakers still benefit from good acoustics, but less so. Dipoles are kind of a different beast, because of the unusually strong front wall reflection and nulls that usually in the direction of the ipsilateral reflection point.
Last edited:
mmm. But if the beam is narrow and you want to keep enough high freq in the room, you need to diffract the wall behing listener, do you? Otherwise I can't see how you can keep a decent power response.
With a dipole you just do the opposite, it's diffraction/absorption compare to absorption/diffraction.. Although some dipole fans here like to absorb the rear wave as well..
Please remark I am not even touching the very delicate subject of low freq modes and coupling..
I see it just as the two sides of the same coin..
mmm. But if the beam is narrow and you want to keep enough high freq in the room, you need to diffract the wall behing listener, do you? Otherwise I can't see how you can keep a decent power response.
With a dipole you just do the opposite, it's diffraction/absorption compare to absorption/diffraction.. Although some dipole fans here like to absorb the rear wave as well..
Please remark I am not even touching the very delicate subject of low freq modes and coupling..
I see it just as the two sides of the same coin..
What probably works best in a two-speaker configuration is a cardioid toed out. The idea is to create a strong side wall reflection that is spectrally similar to the direct sound. I tried a crude approximation by toeing out two Geddes Nathans and it did work quite well.