Well, the inescapable conclusion is that there is no way to simulate any musical instrument with a stereo system. It is naive to talk about realism as we could do it, when we can't.
Has anybody ever truly thought a real piano was playing in their music room from speakers?
Have you ever thought that while outside that room and down the hallway? Across the street? Down the block?
It is a sensible objective to put piano music in your room but not a piano.
B.
Last edited:
Yes. We've all had such experiences, for sure.
Maybe we should rate our systems according to how far away you have to be in order to be "fooled".*
But even as stupid and synthetic a sound as your cellphone ringer.... would you ever mistake your cellphone ringing in your music room for a recording of it played on your fancy speakers? Maybe, if you were down the hall or across the street.
B.
*I'm working on a text comparing the down-the-hall audio test to the visual knothole test
Last edited:
Actually, if the CSD shows faster decay, it will not sound as loud. I often use my phone to look into SPL levels during live recordings, the levels look higher than in my listening room, but when I listen on my system at same SPL levels, it does become more stressful than live.
The only explanation I can think of for now is that my speakers do not have sufficient low frequency to drive the SPL, thus the mid becomes much louder than it is supposed to to reach the same SPL calibration, this causes the sound to be too loud.
So I am wondering, how does one adjust the calibration level when speaker low frequency is not sufficient? Theoretically it would amount to a lower SPL calibration, but how much lower?
The only explanation I can think of for now is that my speakers do not have sufficient low frequency to drive the SPL, thus the mid becomes much louder than it is supposed to to reach the same SPL calibration, this causes the sound to be too loud.
So I am wondering, how does one adjust the calibration level when speaker low frequency is not sufficient? Theoretically it would amount to a lower SPL calibration, but how much lower?
that's why in the PA world the general consensus is that the now out of production Adamson MH series cabinets while excellent at pattern control (and easy truck pack) all have a "je ne sais quois?" veil to their sonic signatures that was considered a negative drawback... those designs where built using oblate spheriod waveguides.
so yes i have to agree "No "one" wants to be told that the general consensus trumps their "personal perception".
back to distortion... how can a driver/loudspeaker having high harmonic distortion still be considered linear?
And from this rumor you have concluded that it was the (almost) OS waveguides that were the problem?
Last edited:
no, not from any rumors, i've used these for a number of years. (long term listening and measurements)
i guess you still can't recall the one time we met in person can you? best thing is Brock himself was there and told me to bring my questions and concerns to you directly, it was a lively and engaging conversation up until it came to asking you why they sounded the way they did. after that subject had been broached it went south quickly.
in case you missed it see post 1761
i guess you still can't recall the one time we met in person can you? best thing is Brock himself was there and told me to bring my questions and concerns to you directly, it was a lively and engaging conversation up until it came to asking you why they sounded the way they did. after that subject had been broached it went south quickly.
in case you missed it see post 1761
Last edited:
This is one reason I like the different vertical and horizontal directivity patterns of a small waveguide loaded ribbon tweeter.
In the horizontal plane it is more or less CD ~90-120 degrees from about 2Khz up to about 15Khz controlled by the waveguide, giving a spectrally neutral (but attenuated) off axis response for sidewall reflections and minimal baffle diffraction effects from cabinet edges, however in the vertical plane it has a lot higher, smoothly increasing DI with no significant vertical "side" lobes.
This increased DI in the vertical plane brings the overall room power response down at higher frequencies such that the power response can taper down sufficiently whilst simultaneously having a flat on axis response. So there is no need to taper down the on axis response to get a "neutral" sounding response like there is on drivers with excessive or equal dispersion in both planes at high frequencies.
Another benefit is reduced floor and ceiling reflections of high frequencies - which are detrimental to imaging.
Our perception of the effects of directivity in the horizontal and vertical planes is completely different, so I don't see any reason why the high frequency directivity of a tweeter should be the same in both planes except for "that's the way it's traditionally done" using round drivers or round waveguides.
But when you look into it there are advantages to deliberately making vertical and horizontal patterns different at high frequencies to exploit these differences in perception and get a suitable balance between on axis and power response.
Last edited:
It's the sidewall reflections that I don't want. And with a directivity of up to 120 degrees there will be significant baffle diffraction. One cannot assume because there is directivity in the far field that this directivity holds right down to the baffle.
I don't disagree that different vertical and horizontal coverage could have some advantages, but the implementation also tends to have some severe disadvantages. I have made waveguides with different vertical and horizontal coverage. The vertical coverage tends to collapse much sooner than the horizontal because the waveguide is narrower. This aggravates the vertical lobbing at the crossover, which is something to be avoided. I treat the floor and ceiling bounce in the room, not in the speaker.
Are blaming Brock's design on me? Or you just don't like me personally, I can't figure out which. I had very little to do with the speakers that you show and if you look at my own designs you will see that they are nothing alike. Brock did many many things wrong.
kind of thought i would see a reply of that nature.
no i do not have a problem with you personally and respect the body of your work, i just dislike the scapegoating you engage in (like blaming others for not getting it right) when anyone attempts to ask or talk about the potentially negative aspects of waveguiding and the design process.
continually down playing and seesawing on "distortion" "linear" or "non linear" and it's "perception" and "bias's" as being the reasons/proof that there's "nothing wrong" with oblate spheriod waveguides.
that you had no input or very little to do with MH series cabs that sure wasn't your take back then...
no i do not have a problem with you personally and respect the body of your work, i just dislike the scapegoating you engage in (like blaming others for not getting it right) when anyone attempts to ask or talk about the potentially negative aspects of waveguiding and the design process.
continually down playing and seesawing on "distortion" "linear" or "non linear" and it's "perception" and "bias's" as being the reasons/proof that there's "nothing wrong" with oblate spheriod waveguides.
that you had no input or very little to do with MH series cabs that sure wasn't your take back then...
Last edited:
Thank you!