Good. But it is also well known that duration of a tone will also determine it's audibility and perceived loudness. So it seems some more study might be necessary. Additionally, how the tone volume is increased also might yeild different results. So when we interpretate the data, these factors also need to be considered.
I am a bit familiar with Blauerts work. What i find particular interesting is, that when we make changes to the frequency response at certain frequencies there is also a change in perception concerning localisation. Dropping the energy around 2kHz gives the impression of more depth of image and raising the level at 7kHz gives the elevation effect as far as i can remember.
Where to put the crossover frequency is a good question and the choices for the ZLD may be dictated more by the desired off axis response and not so much avoiding the area around 3.5kHz where the ear is very sensitive. Funny enough that a lot of my most successfull speakers like the Audio Physic Virgo 2 or the Sonics Argenta had the crossover smack in the middle of the problem zone.
Where to put the crossover frequency is a good question and the choices for the ZLD may be dictated more by the desired off axis response and not so much avoiding the area around 3.5kHz where the ear is very sensitive. Funny enough that a lot of my most successfull speakers like the Audio Physic Virgo 2 or the Sonics Argenta had the crossover smack in the middle of the problem zone.
Those curves are pretty much useless for music/movies. Look at the Dolby/Audyssey curves.
I have no knowledge of the Dolby/Audyssey curves or how they came to be. Is there any literature on it? I did a search and all that came up were discussions related with Dolby/Audyssey and ISO226.
Also bear in mind that home theater design goals are to thrill.
Also bear in mind that home theater design goals are to thrill.
Not to disagree Soongsc, but my HT is designed to playback the content the way it was intended to be heard. That seems like the norm in HT circles--I'm still not sure what's the goal for most in stereo audio.
Dan
Dan
This may not have directly to do with what we discuss here but there is a new book from Dr. Peter Damaske "Acoustics and hearing" where he proposes a two challel system for surround sound.
I got curious how the free standing OX tweeter will perform on top of the nylon sphere.
This time the surprise was pleasant. The sphere seems to baffle the tweeter in the lower reaches without introducing any bad combfiltering effects.
This time the surprise was pleasant. The sphere seems to baffle the tweeter in the lower reaches without introducing any bad combfiltering effects.
Attachments
Looking at the curves presented, there still seems to be quite a good amount of diffraction content. Probably it would be more obviouse if compared with a measurement conducted around 1mm or two near field.
Dan, the goal of HT and theater systems is to thrill. Goal of audio systems are not clear because you can go either fidelity or thrill, or somewhere in between. There will be people that like it whichever way.
Soongsc, yes, there are some ripples but i have some ideas how to improve on that. The question is how far i get to perfection. Anything better then pus-minus 2dB whould be apreciated. What i found fascinating is, that the sphere helps out the tweeter in the lower passband so making a crossover will be much easier.
If the program material is thrilling, an accurate system will be as well wether or not there is a moving picture to go with it. I can't say I know what a thrilling system is. Good dynamics? Elevated/deep bass or some other abnormality/distortion? No need to answer--silly questions. I'd say an accurate system is innately thrilling when called upon.
Dan
Dan
Joachim, where do you get those nylon spheres? All I ca think of is like, fishing industry. How stiff are they, do you think you can do without having to "strengthen" the walls?
When I mention the term "thrill" it's like it does not have to sound real, but it can still effect your emotions. Like thriller movies...
For example, gunfire and aircraft sounds are greatly exagerrated. Cannons and heavy artillery are really not up to live levels, but they still acheive the purpose of creating excitement.
Music can be that way to, but in HiFi, I would like it to sound as real as possible.
I think it's the other way around. Movies are more demanding in max. SPL levels and dynamics. A movie soundtrack today will sound more real than anything the music industry creates. There are standards. The music industry has none. Then there's multichannel. It solves a lot of problems in regard to making spaciousness and envelopment part of the recording. Any widespread use of multichannel in music reproduction? Nope.
So if realism is your goal, then the movie industry has the tools. Do they use it that way? Probably not.
Well, I've stood beside tanks as they were fired (right beside and at 50M distances), and have flown jet trainers, etc. Movies sound nothing like the real thing by a long way.
Wow Mr Gerhard!
again I have to say I absolutely love Your style! 🙂 what a great idea with this ball
my next project will definitely be a stereolithlike system using a ball and a pair of ball flooders 😀
indeedn it's extremely important to have balls!
BTW do You know this Stereolith thing?
Stereolith - stereolith.com
best regards! And Happy New 2011! 🙂
graaf
Last edited:
Who wants to listen to a firing tank at real SPLs, killing some hair cells and probably ruining his hearing forever?
Anyway, that doesn't change anything I've said in my last post. If your goal is realism in recodrings that really translate to other rooms then look at the tools and specs the movie industry has and compare that to what the music industry has to offer.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.