More rewarding speaker directivity pattern for in-room stereo listening - Page 9 - diyAudio
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 13th June 2013, 10:01 AM   #81
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Quote:
Originally Posted by gedlee View Post
This all comes down to what I call the "Classical Audiophile Syndrome (CAS)" - that only classical music perform in a large auditorium is worthy of consideration as a musical source for reproduction. CAS completely distorts the objective of "accuracy", replacing instead an objective of "the creation of a false impression of spaciousness" whether or not one is intended or desired in the source material.
Who's to blame? People are simply trying to achieve satisfying reproduction. Something they like. Preference not reference.

I'd love to be able to calibrate my audio equipment just like I calibrate my video equipment. This is simply impossible because there are no meaningful standards in audio reproduction to do so. How can we achieve accuracy if the transmission path changes arbitrarily?
There are some areas in audio reproduction where the concept of accuracy can be applied, e.g. driver distortion. But then a speaker is put in a room and there's no meaningful way of defining accuracy anymore. There would need to be a standard for the room/speaker interface which would make it possible to get exactly the same spatial presentation at home as in mixing/mastering environments. Such standards don't exist and I don't see that changing any time soon.

Last edited by markus76; 13th June 2013 at 10:18 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th June 2013, 11:43 AM   #82
gedlee is offline gedlee  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Novi, Michigan
I don't blame anyone. It is perfectly natural to want "preference". But "preference" has gotten out of control to the point where "high fidelity" is no longer the goal. I jump in when I think that "preference" in the discussion has been taken to the point where it is in contradiction to what we know is wrong.

"I prefer hamburger to tenderloin, hence tenderloin is an inferior cut of meat."

You can like hamburger, that's fine, but you cannot conclude that tenderloin is no good as a result.

We need to move towards the goal that that you and I would both like to see, not give up and just go with the flow.

As to the width of the baffle for a corner mount, I have not given it much thought. I do not buy the claim that a corner is a "horn extension", at least not above a few hundred Hz. The waveguide not being smoothly continued by the walls could create some serious mouth reflection issues. Mouth reflections are one of the most insidious problems with waveguides - you don't want to do anything that makes them worse.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th June 2013, 12:27 PM   #83
6.283 is offline 6.283  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Black Forest
But while checking if tenderloin is superior or not some people forget to enjoy the burger

They can't appreciate it and they just gorge it down and wonder why they suffer from constipation. That is no progress either also in a different sense.

Such standards are not likely to come. They are probably not even important enough because the vast majority of people just doesn't care what the freak in the studio heard or not. So there is no market.

And again, it is an illusion that needs to work. If it does, then people will come and buy.
__________________
2Pi-online.de
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th June 2013, 01:39 PM   #84
PRTG is offline PRTG  Latvia
diyAudio Member
 
PRTG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Riga
Send a message via Skype™ to PRTG
Quote:
Originally Posted by gedlee View Post
I don't blame anyone. It is perfectly natural to want "preference". But "preference" has gotten out of control to the point where "high fidelity" is no longer the goal. I jump in when I think that "preference" in the discussion has been taken to the point where it is in contradiction to what we know is wrong.
I recall you mentioning ears as unreliable source for recognizing reference sound. Olive's work referred by Toole shows the opposite in blind tests - almost any individual can correctly judge the overall quality of sound. The preference given by unexperienced was strongly corellated with trained listeners latter showing just better consistency in their answers for preference. So if majority of preferences are corellated that leads to the highly believable ability of referrence recognition, at least within blind test conditions.

Exceptions are ears that have suffered hearing loss, brain that has strongly memorized attachment (adaptation) of non-referece sound, brain that has developed fatique (overlistened), eyes plus visual brain that are showing exceptional build quality hence masking the probably defective sonar performance, etc. You're totally right if you meant some of these situations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gedlee View Post
"I prefer hamburger to tenderloin, hence tenderloin is an inferior cut of meat."

You can like hamburger, that's fine, but you cannot conclude that tenderloin is no good as a result.
Lets not separate the food from environment and we'll be back on track I guess most people would prefer to eat hamburger in the car (if its worth eating at all) and tenderloin to be best enjoyed in the quiet restaurant with fine drapes and silver cutlery. You may eat hamburger in restaurant, too, but it just doesn't fit. Same goes for sound in different rooms.

From what I've heard in different places (unfortunantely in non-blind test conditions) I conclude that preference for directivity or radiation pattern is tied to the particular room qualities much more than we probably think it is. If we would have stereo sets of different speakers in the same room then the set that has dispersion parameters that complements the room the best way combined with optimal placement for its particular dispersion type and probably involving EQing of sound power in respect for the listener position will be preferred by most of the listeners. This effect will be increased proportionally to room reflectiveness and the room getting towards too small (side reflections are early and timbrally too harsh) or too large (reflections become timbrally lean echoes).

Quote:
Originally Posted by gedlee View Post
We need to move towards the goal that that you and I would both like to see, not give up and just go with the flow.
Yes, we all are doing our best, thanks for all the contributions to the thread so far!
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th June 2013, 01:50 PM   #85
PRTG is offline PRTG  Latvia
diyAudio Member
 
PRTG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Riga
Send a message via Skype™ to PRTG
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
There would need to be a standard for the room/speaker interface which would make it possible to get exactly the same spatial presentation at home as in mixing/mastering environments. Such standards don't exist and I don't see that changing any time soon.
Right. Add the perceptual dependency on loudness of reproduction (which may also excite room reflected response at different volume differently also on mid and high frequencies, btw) and ground for standartizing "accurately perceived reproduction" gets really slippery. And even more desireable at the same time.

By the way, does your perception of colour balance produced by video set change when it you dim or light the room slightly? Does calibration take it into account? Just curious.
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th June 2013, 02:37 PM   #86
Pano is offline Pano  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
Pano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Milliways
Blog Entries: 4
Yes, it does. Tho color balance isn't what changes the most.
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th June 2013, 04:32 PM   #87
diyAudio Member
 
speaker dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The Mountain, Framingham
Quote:
Originally Posted by PRTG View Post
From what I've heard in different places (unfortunantely in non-blind test conditions) I conclude that preference for directivity or radiation pattern is tied to the particular room qualities much more than we probably think it is. If we would have stereo sets of different speakers in the same room then the set that has dispersion parameters that complements the room the best way combined with optimal placement for its particular dispersion type and probably involving EQing of sound power in respect for the listener position will be preferred by most of the listeners. This effect will be increased proportionally to room reflectiveness and the room getting towards too small (side reflections are early and timbrally too harsh) or too large (reflections become timbrally lean echoes).
I think this is true, that directivity and room qualities are linked.

In fact you can't really have a preference for directivity alone. Sure you can think you like a certain directivity, but in blind tests I think you would only have a preference for a particular direct to reflected ratio.

Some like a close up sound and vivid stereo effect. Others like a diffuse sound. Directivty is one factor for these, room reverberation and listening distance are the other two. The combination of the 3 sets a direct to reflected balance. A person that likes higher directivity should be equally satisfied with closer listening or a deader room.

Hard to seperate one from the other. It is worthwhile to calculate the variation in direct to reflected ratios that you can achieve with the usual range of speaker directivities. It isn't very much and can be easily swamped by the variation available in room reverberence or listening distance.

David
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th June 2013, 11:48 PM   #88
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: MN
Quote:
Originally Posted by PRTG View Post
So if majority of preferences are corellated that leads to the highly believable ability of referrence recognition, at least within blind test conditions.
A rather massive caveat, let's be clear. Also, that's not just blind test conditions, it's (usually) consistent music/signals that are being heard, as opposed to a bunch of people with their own reference recordings.

Last edited by dumptruck; 20th June 2013 at 11:51 PM.
  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
What is the ideal directivity pattern for stereo speakers? keyser Multi-Way 2645 16th April 2014 01:26 PM
Black Hole in your listening room; room treatment dfidler Everything Else 5 29th March 2011 12:02 AM
I need a soft (for location speaker stereo) in a room mati1979 Software Tools 1 7th November 2009 08:19 AM
Driver pattern, directivity and other confusing issues mefistofelez Multi-Way 2 19th January 2006 03:56 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:38 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