This is copied and pasted from another thread. So I'm quoting myself here 
But what do you think about this idea Soundtrackmixer?
"I had an idea a long time ago.
Most people already have a 5.1 or 7.1 system right?
Well, I suggest recording engineers should record each member of a band in there own sound proof room and mix them for dolby digital or dts.
Then we set all of our speakers up in the front of the room.
That way each musician will have a separate speaker.
This way we won't have to worry about room treatments.
The band will always sound as if they are in your room.
Presto!
Of course this will only work for small ensambles.
And its always they are hear, never you are there."
But what do you think about this idea Soundtrackmixer?
"I had an idea a long time ago.
Most people already have a 5.1 or 7.1 system right?
Well, I suggest recording engineers should record each member of a band in there own sound proof room and mix them for dolby digital or dts.
Then we set all of our speakers up in the front of the room.
That way each musician will have a separate speaker.
This way we won't have to worry about room treatments.
The band will always sound as if they are in your room.
Presto!
Of course this will only work for small ensambles.
And its always they are hear, never you are there."
You are much more fortunate that most orchestras that I'm familiar with . . . where just getting budget for enough rehearsal time is an issue, period . . . let alone even more for microphone placement and re-arranging seating to avoid bleed and crosstalk. While "we know where" sounds good when said, I've heard few "good" examples even when the mixdown is only to two channels. And I'm curious who (in the Bay Area) has both the concert hall and mix-and-monitoring facilities to do good multi-channel symphonic recording. The Festival Orchestra that I work with (MMF) is always looking for available performance venues (particularly a problem in SF with Herbst shut down for the rebuild).
You miss my point there . . . sure, everyone has the room chart that says where to put the speakers . . . not everyone has a room that permits that . . . expecially if the speakers are bigger than "home theater in a box" cubes. A room full of speakers may work for the "hi fi nut" or the professional recording studio, but it raises real issues for most people.
I didn't mean to sound like that, but a lot of people here are always mentioning literature that others publish to make their points. We have to remember that the people that write those papers are people with opinions just like us....... Toole, Linkwitz, D'appalito, Haas, Glasgal.... and the rest of them. I think referring to these same old theories are whats keeping us talking about the same crap. So I say from my experience Ambiophonics is best. I have listen to stereo, multichannel, mono, pro logic matrixing, OSD.
I don't know of anything else that comes closer than ambiophonics in appealing to HRTF, regarding 2 channel sources. Of course it doesn't solve the pinna problem, but it puts it pinna cues in a better location.
We all know that the best way to realism is perfect wave propagation as found in high order ambisonics, but we have to keep it in context of 2 channel recordings.
Actually, we might all be without our loudspeaker obsessions soon if Binaural audio keeps gaining traction!
Some of those people mentioned don't simply offer their opinions but real scientific research including controlled listening test. Everybody can verify those results. Those results are not a matter of beliefs but about objective data.
Ambiophonics distributes the HRTF mismatch to side sources for correct HRTF in the center. That's just the opposite of common 2 speaker stereo. Virtually all recordings are made for the latter so new problems arise.
Furthermore stereo is not a soundfield reconstruction technique.
This is copied and pasted from another thread. So I'm quoting myself here
But what do you think about this idea Soundtrackmixer?
"I had an idea a long time ago.
Most people already have a 5.1 or 7.1 system right?
Well, I suggest recording engineers should record each member of a band in there own sound proof room and mix them for dolby digital or dts.
Then we set all of our speakers up in the front of the room.
That way each musician will have a separate speaker.
This way we won't have to worry about room treatments.
The band will always sound as if they are in your room.
Presto!
Of course this will only work for small ensambles.
And its always they are hear, never you are there."
You won't find much pleasure in listening to a symphony orchestra playing in your living room. It would sound very real but it wouldn't sound good. That's why concert halls even exist.
You are such a devils advocate markus
If their research is so proven, why does everybody here argue and disagree about most of it?
I'm speaking of research pertaining to psychoacoustics, which can't be measured and quantified......and as you know, most physical properties of sound reproduction involve psychoacoustics, wether it be reflections, power response, polar response, dispersion characteristics at different frequencies and so on.....
It's not the measurement of these things but how we receive them, and if they are important enough to pay attention to for achieving realism.
As far as the mismatch for side sources in ambiophonics, that's only pertaining to pinna localization cues (high frequencies) and personally, I believe that having center stage better represented than 30 degrees off to each side is the way to go, because most sound is between the 60 degree window where stereo fails miserably. Ambio is not just the opposite of stereo IMO.
If recordings are made for traditional stereo, what about headphones and cars and the little mp3 boom boxes?
I didn't say stereo was a soundfield reconstruction technique, I said ambisonics could be, if enough channels were used.
Ignoring the "same old theories" of Toole, Linkwitz, et al regarding audio and psychoacoustics is as rash as ignoring the old theories of Newton and Einstein regarding physics and celestial mechanics. The age of a scientific paper does not diminish its value. The fact that relativity and quantum mechanics were unknown to Newton does not change the fact that his findings are still the basis for virtually all mechanical engineering 325 years after the Principia was first published. It is one thing to publish new findings that improve on the foundation...entirely another to imagine you can wing it without science.
Bad example.
Newton and Einstein's theories are proven.
well, not all of them, for that we would need to jump into a black hole
psychoacoustics can not be proven, they are related to personal experience.
Furthermore, why are we still listening to stereo? anyone worth their salt will admit that stereo crosstalk is the number 1 offender when trying to reproduce a phantom image.
Ignoring this might just be the biggest blunder in all of audio reproduction, yet it is still ignored.
Why is it ignored? because challenging such a well established institution takes big cojones! it leads to a life of ostracization and poor sales if you are in the business.
Newton and Einstein's theories are proven.
well, not all of them, for that we would need to jump into a black hole
psychoacoustics can not be proven, they are related to personal experience.
Furthermore, why are we still listening to stereo? anyone worth their salt will admit that stereo crosstalk is the number 1 offender when trying to reproduce a phantom image.
Ignoring this might just be the biggest blunder in all of audio reproduction, yet it is still ignored.
Why is it ignored? because challenging such a well established institution takes big cojones! it leads to a life of ostracization and poor sales if you are in the business.
Last edited:
Nice try! No theory is ever proven...just as Newton was heavily modified by Einstein under relativistic conditions, Einstein may be modified by future findings. The fact that acoustics is ultimately a mental percept makes it no less beneficially a subject of scientific study than optics, which also ultimately lands as a percept in the mind. The trick is to tease out those aspects of study that are amenable to the scientific method. By your rationale we should sweep aside all aspects of science that deal with the mind.
Theories aren't proven?
you are getting far to existential here.
We can't believe what we see?
ok, sure.........
And I am not suggesting we sweep aside all aspects of science, all I am saying is when trying to understand psychoacoustics, it is best to trust our experience rather than someone elses.
you are getting far to existential here.
We can't believe what we see?
ok, sure.........
And I am not suggesting we sweep aside all aspects of science, all I am saying is when trying to understand psychoacoustics, it is best to trust our experience rather than someone elses.
I'd also like to add that everybody has an agenda....
It doesn't have to be a financial one, It could be just the satisfaction of being right.
after all that's the ultimate payoff for scientists, and it should be after a long life of research and mental exercises.
I just think that we should have our own experiences through experimentation and yes...actually building stuff
That's how you really learn, because if you are going to put so much effort in your belief, the lesson...whether it be successful or not will really hit home.
It doesn't have to be a financial one, It could be just the satisfaction of being right.
after all that's the ultimate payoff for scientists, and it should be after a long life of research and mental exercises.
I just think that we should have our own experiences through experimentation and yes...actually building stuff
That's how you really learn, because if you are going to put so much effort in your belief, the lesson...whether it be successful or not will really hit home.
Yes.. no problem with the line of discussion, but it really needs to be moved to a new or more appropriate thread.
Just where are the mods.?
Got to visit the LX521 on their “native turf” for a couple hours Sunday (my first visit to their “place of birth"), and to listen on them to some very familiar (and somewhat flawed) recordings that I heard up close and personal both in rehearsal and in performance. Since I was primarily interested in further evaluating the new midrange I took a soprano aria (Christina Major singing Ruhe Sanft, Midsummer Mozart Festival) and the Serenade #10 for winds (Gran Partita, also Midsummer Mozart). SL then played a couple “studio mixed” recordings that highlighted issues of “phantom image” formation (more about that later).
First, about the lower midrange bump (I previously described it as “forward sounding”) that I noted at BurningAmp. It is entirely absent in SL’s listening room, and as I speculated before it is now clearly an artifact of the space at Ft. Mason. No speaker can be completely immune to the room. In SL’s room (which is itself relatively “live” and reflective) overall balance and “timbre” are as good as it gets. There was simply nothing wrong with the reproduction of the various winds in the Partita.
Second, regarding issues of the midrange crossover and driver integration . . . I had heard no problem with that at BurningAmp, but it has been suggested that there might be some, and that, more than anything else, is what I went to listen for. Put it to rest, there is no “problem”. The lower and upper mids sound like one driver, and there is not the slightest hint otherwise. And, to answer your next question, it’s one very good driver indeed . . . every bit the match for ORION’s W22 in the lower midrange and Millennium in the upper, but without the oft discussed issues those two have around crossover. The higher order crossover that is simply a necessity with the drivers in ORION is not needed with the LX521 drivers . . . whether the increased phase shift of a higher order crossover can be heard or influences “image formation” is here moot, since it is not necessary. This makes putting the passive (first order) crossover between the two midrange drivers the obvious, and correct, choice with these drivers.
But back to “imaging” and the “auditory scene” . . . that’s more a “mixed bag”, not because of any LX521 problem but because they ruthlessly expose problems in the recording. When it’s there it’s there, when it’s not it’s not. These are rightly called “monitors”, and they will embarrass many a recording engineer who might listen to his previous work product on them (even though it might not be entirely his fault . . . there are unavoidable “issues” with two-channel stereo). The female vocalist in one of the clearly mixed-and-pan-potted recordings SL played was “present” as a near perfect phantom when I listened centered on axis, but fled into the speakers when I move more than a few degrees to either side. Christi (singing the Ruhe) was less precisely located in her actual left-of-center position, but she stayed there as I moved around the room (that recording was straight through from a ORTF pair). We’ve still got a lot to learn about creating stable “auditory scenes”, and I expect the LX521 (or something like it) will play a significant role in learning and demonstrating what it is.
I much preferred listening from the back seat (you can find pictures of SL’s listening room at the linkwitzlab site). I don’t know exactly what that means, or how it will translate to my room (where I generally prefer a somewhat “further back” position with ORION as well). For the “average listener” they (the LX521) may be almost too ruthless in the way they “expose” a recording. For someone in the trade, on the other hand, they should be regarded as indispensable . . . it just doesn’t “do” to have a client demonstrate to you on their own speakers flaws in your work that you cannot hear on your own “studio monitors”.
First, about the lower midrange bump (I previously described it as “forward sounding”) that I noted at BurningAmp. It is entirely absent in SL’s listening room, and as I speculated before it is now clearly an artifact of the space at Ft. Mason. No speaker can be completely immune to the room. In SL’s room (which is itself relatively “live” and reflective) overall balance and “timbre” are as good as it gets. There was simply nothing wrong with the reproduction of the various winds in the Partita.
Second, regarding issues of the midrange crossover and driver integration . . . I had heard no problem with that at BurningAmp, but it has been suggested that there might be some, and that, more than anything else, is what I went to listen for. Put it to rest, there is no “problem”. The lower and upper mids sound like one driver, and there is not the slightest hint otherwise. And, to answer your next question, it’s one very good driver indeed . . . every bit the match for ORION’s W22 in the lower midrange and Millennium in the upper, but without the oft discussed issues those two have around crossover. The higher order crossover that is simply a necessity with the drivers in ORION is not needed with the LX521 drivers . . . whether the increased phase shift of a higher order crossover can be heard or influences “image formation” is here moot, since it is not necessary. This makes putting the passive (first order) crossover between the two midrange drivers the obvious, and correct, choice with these drivers.
But back to “imaging” and the “auditory scene” . . . that’s more a “mixed bag”, not because of any LX521 problem but because they ruthlessly expose problems in the recording. When it’s there it’s there, when it’s not it’s not. These are rightly called “monitors”, and they will embarrass many a recording engineer who might listen to his previous work product on them (even though it might not be entirely his fault . . . there are unavoidable “issues” with two-channel stereo). The female vocalist in one of the clearly mixed-and-pan-potted recordings SL played was “present” as a near perfect phantom when I listened centered on axis, but fled into the speakers when I move more than a few degrees to either side. Christi (singing the Ruhe) was less precisely located in her actual left-of-center position, but she stayed there as I moved around the room (that recording was straight through from a ORTF pair). We’ve still got a lot to learn about creating stable “auditory scenes”, and I expect the LX521 (or something like it) will play a significant role in learning and demonstrating what it is.
I much preferred listening from the back seat (you can find pictures of SL’s listening room at the linkwitzlab site). I don’t know exactly what that means, or how it will translate to my room (where I generally prefer a somewhat “further back” position with ORION as well). For the “average listener” they (the LX521) may be almost too ruthless in the way they “expose” a recording. For someone in the trade, on the other hand, they should be regarded as indispensable . . . it just doesn’t “do” to have a client demonstrate to you on their own speakers flaws in your work that you cannot hear on your own “studio monitors”.
I spent a good part of the day listening to the Note II with 1st, 2nd and 4th order crossovers between the mids. All seemed to perform equally with well the 1st order better than I recalled but with perhaps the 2nd order sounding the best. However, the excessive excursion of the 1st order was obvious from a finger touch. I'll be looking at the polar plots tomorrow or after Thanks Giving. On the techinical side, the 2nd order yields the best looking system impulse and perhaps the best CSD.
I don't know what you are doing that is different from what SL is doing, but "excessive excursion" is simply not an issue with the LX521. The cones on the drivers in LX521 are well behaved far enough out from crossover that the benefit of higher out-of-band suppression (necessary, for example, with the W22) just isn't there. With many drivers I'd expect higher order to sound better for that reason (stop-band suppression) alone. Imaging is possibly helped by the lower phase shift of the lower order filter . . . at very least it's one less confounding variable to worry about. What we perceive, even how we perceive, in the critical midband is still an open area of study. The motors and suspension of both drivers are obviously quite good, and seem well matched and balanced for the application. There may be some room for improvement, but I'd expect it to be modest.
Initial shipment of the custom "SL" drivers is promised RSN, although until there is sufficient supply they may be reserved for licensed builders. Once they are available you might want to get a set . . . the baffle dimensions can be easily figured from a photograph (especially if you think like an engineer
) . . . and then repeat your crossover experiment with them.
There are psycho-acoustic effects that are such that less than 6mS doesn't sound good. Why is complicated. Floor and ceiling bounce is why I used a vertical line array of 4 five in drivers on each side in my open baffle speakers to handle 100HZ to 1.4kHZ. Although floor and ceiling bounce will make a mess of the frequency response at the listening position in most typical listening rooms, it's effectively a separate mechanism from the 6mS delay from the rear radiation, and has significantly different psycho-acoustic effects.What happens when reflections are delayed by 6ms? Delay them by 6ms and everything's fine? What about number, angle, spectral content, delay? Doesn't matter? By the way, what about floor and ceiling?
By the way you skipped over the lateral reflection part of my last post
On the issue of lateral emissions enhancing the sense of spaciousness, that is true, but side wall reflections will blur any real imaging information that may be embedded in a high quality recording.
The motors and suspensions for the LX521 are custom done for that application. I don't think excursion is an issue at all. I have a pair of the 4" drivers and just listened to them for a few hours full range in a small box and then switched back to my standard reference speakers. I quickly realized that they are something quite special. I see a pair of LX521 in my future and my wife will pick the colors like in my Orions for the WAF.