No need for apology . . . while I'd give the psychology a "maybe" I agree with the general perception . . . but I'll add this: That "up close" sound that some seem to be seeking is nothing like what you hear sitting in the orchestra on stage. That sound is simply not captured in any recording that I have ever heard. Getting the general sound and "feel" of a seat in the audience, though, is reasonably doable with recordings that exist and in rooms that we can exist in.
thanks for your acknowledgement.
we haven't sliced the pickle too thin, yet imho....
my perception is rooted in a reference. That reference is tainted by studio recordings. I like to hear what the mixing engineers want me to hear, but I know that it is an illusion in comparison to unamplified instruments located in space, the engineer does the best he/she can with the tools available.
I understand where you are coming from, in a dynamics sense. Orchestral instruments can be incredibly dynamic, and proximity to their output, breeds a sense of awe... euphony, I tend to misuse the word but it's not ecstasy, so... anyway.
I can't and probably will never be suitably impressed with one type of system over another, because I cannot achieve the results I want with just one type.
Studio, rock recordings have to be played without the room coming so much into the field because I need the black between the instruments, the mixologists can really fudge their addition in the name of "art" much like the actual artists must deliberately indicate their own indelible mark, or representation. I am listening to a product, and the fun is looking into the product aurally to find cues that speak directly to me in the wash.
Live audience, acoustic music, I need the room. I want the room; I want to be a part of the crowd. I have to place myself in the grouped audience to have the recording "be all that it can be," and get a kick out of being able to do that, in a listening room far removed from the event.
perhaps the technology is there, in Markus' reverb creators and primary direct radiators.
but for now, I need to have (at least) 2 different reproduction systems available for my personal taste accommodation, and that's just good for the speaker builder business, lol...
What's the difference to dipoles/omnis??
There's still a difference between acoustics and artistic performance.
Sure, but if you can synthesize "ambience" you can synthesize anything . . . it's all just "sound" . . .
And if there's no difference to dipoles then why bother with the synthetic reverb and multiple speakers? I mean, I give you a Decca or Telefunken recording (without a picture to even hint where the mikes were placed) and where are you going to get the "extra channels" of ambient sound?
Sure, but if you can synthesize "ambience" you can synthesize anything . . . it's all just "sound" . . .
Why would you be able to synthesize anything just because something can be synthesized? Can we create life just because we can grow artificial skin?
Furthermore, I've never mentioned synthesizing anything. Are you familiar with Gerzon's matrixing approach?
Because http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/223454-new-linkwitz-lx521-speakers-44.html#post3274573
And again, "synthetic" wasn't mentioned in any of my posts.
Now that is exactly the question (which was already asked by Elias). There is currently no definitive answer.
Last edited:
the perception is that DSP, or time delay of any kind, is not natural reverberation/decay and therefore falls under a synthetic classification.
anything you can do that moves away from point source, is going to be scrutinized under the auspices of natural room response modes and any attempt to recreate the conditions where the recording took place through the use of applied mathematics or digital recombinant technological wizardry, is a move away from the purist designs we all secretly harbor when we are forced to push a tone slide or turn a knob that isn't volume...
anything you can do that moves away from point source, is going to be scrutinized under the auspices of natural room response modes and any attempt to recreate the conditions where the recording took place through the use of applied mathematics or digital recombinant technological wizardry, is a move away from the purist designs we all secretly harbor when we are forced to push a tone slide or turn a knob that isn't volume...
There was a unit capable of doing this that was close to being released, pretty expensive, but which was cancelled because apparently key parts became unavailable: the Lexicon MP-20 Processor, very powerful DSP to unravel elements of the sound, play with them and then steer to appropriate channels.Sure, but if you can synthesize "ambience" you can synthesize anything . . . it's all just "sound" . . .
And if there's no difference to dipoles then why bother with the synthetic reverb and multiple speakers? I mean, I give you a Decca or Telefunken recording (without a picture to even hint where the mikes were placed) and where are you going to get the "extra channels" of ambient sound?
Frank
Yes, the last I saw on it was at What's Best Forum (WBF Forum), amirm there has very close contact with Harman, and he spells out the story in at least one of the threads ...
Frank
I've been working on a LX521 related project and have done a writeup if anybody is interested.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/227082-css-el70-lx521-fast-something-like.html
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/227082-css-el70-lx521-fast-something-like.html
It's baffle design is rather different from the LX521, so it's not really related I think? Nevertheless seems like a fun project
Remotely related at best. It's closer to ORION (the original, without rear tweeter). It pretty much misses (fails even to try for) almost all the LX521 design objectives ("full range dipole" not least of them).
It's a looooooooong way from OB "driver on a plank" to LX521 . . .
I'm not convinced that wideband dipole is optimal. I suspect that imaging would be significantly improved if the frequency range of about 1kHZ to 7kHZ is not dipole. This is because of how the ear-brain mechanism decodes image location. In that region of frequency, we sense image location primarily be amplitude comparisons. If that region of frequency is dipole, you've brought into the mix complex comb filter effects from room acoustics. More complex and blurring than with monopole. Am I wrong?
It depends
With monopoles comb filter problems are mainly possible from side walls and ceiling, with dipoles the front wall will be the main culprit. The placement of speakers and listening position in your room will decide, which kind of problem you can solve easier.Rudolf
In many OB designs the tweeter is just a single dome ( no rear dome). So I guess most OB's being built almost meet this criteria (?) Crossing over around 1.5 to 2.5 Khz.
depends on the room. large ones that allow for a larger ITD gap will for sure be better in that respect, and dipoles have a stronger D/R ratio than monopoles, so.. you might well not loose as much as you think.
also remember the rear wave cannot really be used "as such", it has to be diffracted or absorbed.