CeramicMan said:
Lech,
Look back in the thread where the Summa listening test is posted.
The Gradient Revolution in the comparison features a cardioid coaxial mid/tweeter above a rotatable dipole woofer. Cardioid response > 200hz with the mid cone providing horn loading/directivity for the tweeter. I'm sure Earl wouldn't call it a "waveguide", but it is certainly a shallow, low gain horn.
Look in my later posts for the 2 in room responses as measured at the listening positions and the comments about independence from room signature.
The question is then, is this desirable when Toole's research shows that reflected sound appears to enhance the music listening experience as well as possibly improve (speech) intelligibility.
If I want to be fooled into thinking that I am hearing the monitors in the recording studio, a cardioid and possibly some sidewall broadband absorption would be in my living room.
However, I'd rather create the illusion that I am hearing live acoustic music in my living room, hence I own dipoles.
I don't think there are any absolutes in either scenario.
cheers,
AJ
Don't let this thread die people ...
and stop getting away from the original topic!
lets keep our knowledgeable users inform us about what they have learned so that we can keep our brain thinking about the solution ..
I think though, we should try and determiate the main goal of ANY loudpseaker system, before trying to understand how it should perform in a particular environement ..
The main objective has not been determined.
and stop getting away from the original topic!
lets keep our knowledgeable users inform us about what they have learned so that we can keep our brain thinking about the solution ..
I think though, we should try and determiate the main goal of ANY loudpseaker system, before trying to understand how it should perform in a particular environement ..
The main objective has not been determined.
Re: JinMTVT
this thread is not going to die
perhaps the title "The Objectives of a Loudspeaker in a Small Room" is little unfortunate in terms of getting people interested
people seem to not know what is a "small room" from point of view of acoustics
perhaps just "The Objectives of a >High Fidelity< Loudspeaker in a >Listening< Room" would be better
this thread is not going to die
perhaps the title "The Objectives of a Loudspeaker in a Small Room" is little unfortunate in terms of getting people interested
people seem to not know what is a "small room" from point of view of acoustics
perhaps just "The Objectives of a >High Fidelity< Loudspeaker in a >Listening< Room" would be better
Two channels are sufficient to reproduce a good sound stage which was originally recorded, but only the part in front of the mics. If the speakers are clean enough having a fast energy decay, it can reproduce the height of the sound stage as orientated in relation with the recording mike. The width of the sound stage is a bit difficult because of the cross talk between the speakers. If we do recordings with mics located at the ears and playback through headphones, then the sound stage is almost perfect. I actually could not differentiate between recording and reality. Back in the 80's, some binaural networks were generated for speakers, but I have not tried these because theoretically it works for only one particular position, and you need to tune it to very specific listening location.
JinMTVT said:
This is good enough for me:
"Realism in staged music sound reproduction is understood to mean the generation of a sound field realistic enough to satisfy any normal ear-brain system that it is in the same space as the performers, that this is a space that could physically exist, and that the sound sources in this space are as full bodied and as easy to locate as at a live concert. Realism does not necessarily equate to accuracy....
One can only achieve realism if all of the ear's hearing mechanisms are simultaneously satisfied without contradictions. "
graaf said:
This is indeed a most important question - which is why I raised it.
To achieve "you are there" when "there" is a room much larger than the playback room, is, IMO, unachievable with two chyannels (and let's face it this appears to be the standard for some time to come.) But "They are here" is achievable and sometimes "You are there" is also achievable if the recording space acoustic is not of a large room or if it is not a dominate acoustic - i.e. the playback rooms acoustic prevails.
Now this later requirement is, by the way, the dominate one in the field of sound recording. Far more music is recorded in small studios than is recorded in large auditoriums. So not only is this goal achievable, but it seems to me to be the most logical one to pursue. The fact that I cannot get an accurate playback of an auditorium space simply means to me that I have to actually go to an auditorium to hear that kind of music - whats the problem? I do this often.
As to the Toole paper and quotes, I simply don't have the time to follow this up any further. Sorry.
fcserei: i can't agree with your quoted text unfortunatly..
there is much more than only spatial reproduction in psychoaccoustical domain ..
I think that we are trying to reverse the audio path, backwards now ..
The mic that is used to record a live event ,
resides at 1 place, and thus records the spatial information with the musical content all at once ..
what we are doing is playback of what the mic caputerd in its position, not elsewhere and nothing more.
We cannot recreate the complete accoustical event as there is not enough information recorded in a simple microphone capture to do so.
What we can do is only a playback of what the mic captured, and every thing we are going to do to that information is going to take us further from the truth.
I do not know how to say it, and i certainly don't have any clue on how to achieve it, but what we want is to be the MIC, nothing more
let's forget about the playback room or studio
How exactly does music recording microphone works?
i guess that they are mostly all stereo, omnipolar type?
One would have to understand the funding principles of accostical human hearing system to know what to do with the captured data, but unfortunaly, i don't
how are we supposed to take that stereo information and extrapolate it until we perceive what was recorded?
then what about recent music CD where there is no "stage" whatsoever, and each musician is recorded individuallyin front of some mic in a special room ?
how can we reproduce that? well..what is there other to reproduce here than musical sound, are the sound engineers "emulating" some sort of stage with the different instruments?
sorry if this doesn't make sense, i am only trying to get some ideas movin in my head right now ..trying to understand the main goal of it
there is much more than only spatial reproduction in psychoaccoustical domain ..
I think that we are trying to reverse the audio path, backwards now ..
The mic that is used to record a live event ,
resides at 1 place, and thus records the spatial information with the musical content all at once ..
what we are doing is playback of what the mic caputerd in its position, not elsewhere and nothing more.
We cannot recreate the complete accoustical event as there is not enough information recorded in a simple microphone capture to do so.
What we can do is only a playback of what the mic captured, and every thing we are going to do to that information is going to take us further from the truth.
I do not know how to say it, and i certainly don't have any clue on how to achieve it, but what we want is to be the MIC, nothing more
let's forget about the playback room or studio
How exactly does music recording microphone works?
i guess that they are mostly all stereo, omnipolar type?
One would have to understand the funding principles of accostical human hearing system to know what to do with the captured data, but unfortunaly, i don't
how are we supposed to take that stereo information and extrapolate it until we perceive what was recorded?
then what about recent music CD where there is no "stage" whatsoever, and each musician is recorded individuallyin front of some mic in a special room ?
how can we reproduce that? well..what is there other to reproduce here than musical sound, are the sound engineers "emulating" some sort of stage with the different instruments?
sorry if this doesn't make sense, i am only trying to get some ideas movin in my head right now ..trying to understand the main goal of it
gedlee said:
perhaps to say "realism does not necessarily equate to accuracy" is a bit misleading but IMHO that opinion touches some very important question
the problem is that when "recognition factor" is our point of departure than we can have two basic options as to what we want to achieve (two alternative ideals):
the first is kind of a "copy of original event" which may be not perfect BUT our hearing system is fooled that we are hearing e.g. a real violin in a real space
not necessarily THE SAME violin or THE SAME space as in the original, the timbre etc. may be a little or more changed, but nevertheless a REAL violin in a REAL space
it doesn't SOUND THE SAME as the original "sound event" but it sounds as a "REAL musical event"
the second is a kind of "reproduction of original event" - as opposed to a "copy" just like we can oppose a copy and a reproduction of a painting
this reproduction may be A LOT MORE ACCURATE than a copy
just like in the case of a painting
nevertheless it can be at the same time a LOT LESS REALISTIC
just like in the case of a painting
a good reproduction of a painting is a lot more accurate than a unperfect copy of painting
BUT it is a mere reproduction nevertheless and not a REAL painting
and in the case of musical "reproduction" it may sound perfectly the same as "the original sound event" and not at all as real sound event
another analogy may be perfect but flat photography and imperfect 3D hologram
the first is far more accurate but the second is far more realistic, isn't it?
it seems to me that mainstream HiFi industry with it's technical approach and technical perfection obsession chose the second option and is about achieving the most perfect REPRODUCTION
those reproductions "sound the same as" but don't "sound as"
our senses cannot be fooled as this reproductions are psychoacoustically inconsistent
the price for technical perfection of "reproduction" is a lack of psychoacoustical consistency of a "copy"
IMHO this is the case (inter alia, IMHO this is true in audio field in general) of a standard stereo set up
we can get "pin-point" or "razor-sharp" imaging etc.
but where in real life we have "pinpoint imaging"?
nowhere of course
so if it is of no relevance from a "recognition factor" perspective then what is its point?
of course "pinpoint imaging" is here an example only
gedlee said:
What a pity!
frankly speaking I find Your lack of profound interest in this question very suprising because it seems that "the diversified opinion" between You and Mr Toole is indeed real
and after all it concerns absolutely fundamental problem for a loudspeaker designer
and absolutely fundamental problem in a whole "The Objectives of a Loudspeaker in a Small Room" theme
graaf said:
You are thinking about the right things, but I don't really agree with where you seem to be going with it.
To sound "real" appears to me to be a uephmism for "the way I like it" or a personal preference of sound quality. This is exactly what mainstream commercial audio companies would have you believe is the goal.
But just like your painting example, I am interested in accuracy - what the painter (producer) intended and not some "replication" that may look more "real" or more "pleasing" to me.
I have thought about these problems for 40 years now and have written extensively on them (using the painting analogy some 20+ years ago) and I have come to the conclusions that I have from both a rational agrument over what is "right" and personal experiences from the creation of "accuracy". I find that the more accurate the system is the more I tend to find performances that sound very "real" to me - so to me "real" and "accurate" are converging. BUT I have also found that as the system gets more accuate not everything that I listen to "sounds great" - I hear all the flaws, etc. So the tradeoff, to me, is this: A better sounding mean performance with a degraded quality of a very good recording, OR an accurate reproduction of the pristeen recording with an unavoidable reduction in the perception of the average to bad recording. You can't have it both ways.
I find the masses are most pleased by the better playback of the mediocre - hence the popularity of compressed audio on I-Pods. The mass marketers ahve won this battle.
But there are still the niche listeners who really appreciate high quality sound reproduction.
gedlee said:
on the first point I would say - yes but not always
sometimes psychoacoustical consistency - which is not a matter of individual taste but of human physiology - is sacrificed on the altar of more abstract technical accuracy i.e. more accurate reproduction of abstract technical test signals in an abstract anechoic environment
the ear is both more and less accurate then measuring methods using microphones
it is fundamentally different
the reverberant environment is also fundamentally different from anechoic
and so on - "listening room being fundamentally different from big auditoria" included
on the second point I agree with Linkwitz - another respected designer for whom >>"real" and "accurate" are converging<< and who at the same time clearly prefers to speak of "accuracy" then of "realism"
Linkwitz rightly points out that virtually anyone can easily disciriminate and appreciate accurate sound reproductiom
as He put it: "Unbiased listeners have no difficulty recognizing accurate sound reproduction, even with hearing damage or with hearing aids"
I believe that the battle is not over
IMHO the promise of stereo has not been fulfilled yet
we need better understanding of a room and a loudspeaker as one system
gedlee said:
on the first point - to me "real" has more to do with human physiology - something very objective - than with subjective "personal preference"
to me "realistic sound" is a sound as accurate as preserving
as to the second point - not only an iPod is on the side opposite to "an accurate reproduction of the pristeen recording with an unavoidable reduction in the perception of the average to bad recording"- there is also e.g. classic Quad
J. Gordon Holt wrote in 1983 in an ESL63 review:
"The Acoustical Manufacturing Company, better known as Quad, is one of the few remaining in the world which still view high fidelity as a service to serious music rather than an end in itself. Their products are designed to meet the needs of classical-record collectors who frequently play old, technically primitive (or inept) recordings for the music or the performance rather than for the sound.
Despite all the improvements in recorded quality that we have witnessed in recent years (with even RCA and CBS getting in on the act), audiophile-quality recordings are still very rare. The variety of fare represented on good recordings is exceedingly small, and the performances themselves range from good to ho-hum. To quote one observer, "Good sound and inspired performance seem mutually exclusive." Amen! Dedicated audiophiles would rather listen to silence than bad sound; record collectors will put up with awful sound if the music is worth listening to.
Quad's view is that a system should be able to reproduce everything of value that is on a recording, while minimizing the irritations of the average (call that "mediocre") recording. Quad's components reflect that philosophy"
What do You think of this "Quad philosophy"?
it seems to somewhat sacrifice ultimate accuracy for the sake of music
as Holt put it: "Quad equipment is not designed primarily for audiophiles, but for serious-music (call that "classical") listeners who play records more for musical enjoyment than for the sound. Quad's loudspeakers do not reproduce very deep bass and will not play at aurally traumatizing volume levels, and Quad's preamplifier is compromised through the addition of tone controls and filters, all for the purpose of making old, mediocre, and/or worn recordings sound as listenable as possible"
graaf said:
You are preaching to the wrong person. I have done more to close the loop between technology and psychoacoustics than any other loudspeaker designer that I know. If, as a loudspeaker designer, you do not measure what you perceive then you are not doing your job very well and if what you measure does not correlate to what you hear then your wasting your time.
I am not uncomfortable with my "understanding of a room and a loudspeaker as one system". I thought the point of this thread was to educate those interested in what I have found.
gedlee said:
it is most certainly not my intention to preach to anybody
my english is not very well and perhaps this is the cause of peculiar style of my posts
I'm really sorry
I didn't know that "the point of this thread was to educate those interested" in what You have found.
I feel justified as there is nothing about it in the first post by SY.
Besides I think it is a great idea because I must say that I am really interested in what You have found.
I hope that You finally will find time to check Toole's paper on small rooms and tell us - the interested - if there is really a "diversified opinion" or just a misunderstanding.
best regards,
graaf
Graaf: your english is very good, good enough so we understand everythihng you are trying to say ..
( requires no excuses from u here ... )
gedlee: Have you already laid your information in this thread or is this a coming soon feature?
I'd glagly take a moment and read everything you have to say on that very subject, since you obviously got alot more experience in loudpseaker design that i might ever get ...
What i stilll do not understand here ...
When recording, the microphone captures ALL the required information ( direct musical content + all other interactions ) for its position
isn't that enough ?
isn't it what we would be listening to at the exact same event ?
So why can't we get it working using this information ?
It seems to me that the information that the microphone is capturing at a live event is sufficient for a complete playback of the exact same even
(since it is a stereo microphone ..aren't our ears functionning in the same way for spatial localisation? )
Then the problem we have would lie in the solde reproduction of this recorded event ...
and neway for now this is the only palce where WE can intervine, as i do not see myself starting to go record live everything i want to be able to hear at home
( not the point here ) with a specialised microphone(s)...
Please confirm with me the few first questions i just left so that my understanding can advance ...
( requires no excuses from u here ... )
gedlee: Have you already laid your information in this thread or is this a coming soon feature?
I'd glagly take a moment and read everything you have to say on that very subject, since you obviously got alot more experience in loudpseaker design that i might ever get ...
What i stilll do not understand here ...
When recording, the microphone captures ALL the required information ( direct musical content + all other interactions ) for its position
isn't that enough ?
isn't it what we would be listening to at the exact same event ?
So why can't we get it working using this information ?
It seems to me that the information that the microphone is capturing at a live event is sufficient for a complete playback of the exact same even
(since it is a stereo microphone ..aren't our ears functionning in the same way for spatial localisation? )
Then the problem we have would lie in the solde reproduction of this recorded event ...
and neway for now this is the only palce where WE can intervine, as i do not see myself starting to go record live everything i want to be able to hear at home
( not the point here ) with a specialised microphone(s)...
Please confirm with me the few first questions i just left so that my understanding can advance ...
It is - record music through microphones inserted in your closed ear canals (stereo) and play using four (or more) speakers with cross talk filters attached to them (PC required). When recording you should be no farer than near/far field midpoint (ca. 2m but depends on room volume).
Normal room should amplify original venue ambiance then.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.