All that reflected sound has you hearing extra n
ughts!They told you omni's weren't accurate, but you wouldn't listen, listen, listen
Haven't caught up with the whole thread. Sorry.
But I wonder if anyone might disabuse me of some idle thoughts here.
Wouldn't an omni radiating loudspeaker be spedifically well suited for certain styles/genres/instruments?
An "unplugged" unamplified, acoustic sound source, say a drum kiit with cymbals, a bell, any percussion, most stringed instruments, less so with horns and vocals etc. In varying degrees, each of these is origainlly an 'omni' source. Their reproduction via your eardrums during a live experience is generally (not always of course in the event of an outdoor venue or some in-the-round arrangement, going to have been reflected by stage walls and ceiling, with all concomitant reinforcements and delays before reaching your ears. Of course the omni speaker, reproducing the event within a your room which can only be an approximation of the original space, is bound to end up delivering some smeared and out of phase information by the time it gets to your ears, but wouldn't even any such degree of or attempt at reproducing the space of the original venue (omni radiation of that origininal cymbal crash for instance) be an improvement over delivering that sound from a 'conventional' forward facing baffle?
But I wonder if anyone might disabuse me of some idle thoughts here.
Wouldn't an omni radiating loudspeaker be spedifically well suited for certain styles/genres/instruments?
An "unplugged" unamplified, acoustic sound source, say a drum kiit with cymbals, a bell, any percussion, most stringed instruments, less so with horns and vocals etc. In varying degrees, each of these is origainlly an 'omni' source. Their reproduction via your eardrums during a live experience is generally (not always of course in the event of an outdoor venue or some in-the-round arrangement, going to have been reflected by stage walls and ceiling, with all concomitant reinforcements and delays before reaching your ears. Of course the omni speaker, reproducing the event within a your room which can only be an approximation of the original space, is bound to end up delivering some smeared and out of phase information by the time it gets to your ears, but wouldn't even any such degree of or attempt at reproducing the space of the original venue (omni radiation of that origininal cymbal crash for instance) be an improvement over delivering that sound from a 'conventional' forward facing baffle?
Good post. I'll throw this in too. Real world applications don't usually have one person sitting on a sofa listening to point sources
Member
Joined 2009
Let's say you record each instrument up close on it's own channel. You can later arrange loudspeakers at the same relative locations and play each channel through the corresponding speaker. If it's done right you should no doubt achieve perfect reproduction at all listening positions.
You will need as many speakers as many instruments there are. To be more strict, physically large instruments like drum kits and pianos should have multiple mic-speakers arrangements. Such a system is definitely possible but not very practical.
A mono system can sound great but it will be flat. Similar to watching TV, you get some clues about space but you know that you are looking at a flat screen. Stereo can add depth to the presentation but only around the central axis. I think the current 3D video technology is a good analogy. You get an illusion of depth from 2 images being projected to each eye but only when you look at it with the special glasses.
So my point is this: 2 sources can give depth clues only on a single axis.
all I can say is that when I listen for example to "Kind of Blue" on a flooder speaker then more directional instruments like trumpet for example sound ..eeer... more directional, more focused than large resonating instrument like drums or double bass
no preference really for any instrument, each is reproduced faithfully
not really, a stereo flooder can give depth/space cues anywhere in the listening room
and mono (yes, mono) flooder sounds very 3D as well, nowhere near flat
funny you say that
my TV audio goes through my normal stereo
and when watching TV, the sound appears like its coming directly from the TV only 🙄
Member
Joined 2009
Yes! But best along the central axis. As you walk towards the side the space/depth window becomes more narrow.
I'm sorry, by MONO I meant 1 speaker.
2 speakers playing in mono will in fact give a 3D image, although it will be always in the center.
Last edited:
for my part I can say that I haven't noticed anything like this
me too, one flooder speaker in mono, here is what one diyaudio user wrote about a mono setup somewhat similar to mine:
Member
Joined 2009
graaf, I was talking about a much simpler concept. 1 sensor(microphone) can only collect information for one dimension in space. If you have a piano and a violin 1 microphone can only tell you which is closer. Not what is to the left or right.
2 microphones collect information in 2 dimensions - left, right / far, near.
2 microphones collect information in 2 dimensions - left, right / far, near.
yes, there is no left-right information, that is obviously correct, however we can perceive certain soundstage/space, virtual sound sources occupying certain space within it this soundstage
though lacking defined left-right localization it is not flat
SL made one book review on Amazon, Toole's book, back in '08.
In his review, he brings up the question about the difference between 2 channel and multi, as he seems to find the stereo predicament not completely mapped, almost as if moving to multi format is a step he's unwilling to take.
This seems to be the same crux presented by this thread, and his two premier adaptations to the auditory scene are envelopment with a piercing beam, and the room's use of dipole reflection building to create the "room from a room" he says is the goal.
The Pluto does not satisfy those who need a frontally focused image, without the reduction in parallel processing that a box provides, but the Orion falls short of the promise of "cardioid with depth cues" due to the lack of sheer intensity a constant directivity system achieves. There is always something fraudulent in the box presentation, most believe it is defined in phase, crossover maladies, etc. but I think it's even more elemental than this. True depth, actual stage placement formed from a stereo recording is an illusion itself, and no matter how one defines that image, it's illusory from it's inception to it's conception, to it's perception.
I guess I should wave the white flag now, but is it any wonder we have not bettered it with multi channel as of yet? I might agree with Toole but does anyone believe that five (or 7, 8?) MBL's in a surround format is our future?
Should we look more closely at the way sound radiates, before we commend a growing trend to the spectre of the box?
Obviously, something has to give, and if multi channel is the wave, then omni is going to be lost in the reflections.
In his review, he brings up the question about the difference between 2 channel and multi, as he seems to find the stereo predicament not completely mapped, almost as if moving to multi format is a step he's unwilling to take.
This seems to be the same crux presented by this thread, and his two premier adaptations to the auditory scene are envelopment with a piercing beam, and the room's use of dipole reflection building to create the "room from a room" he says is the goal.
The Pluto does not satisfy those who need a frontally focused image, without the reduction in parallel processing that a box provides, but the Orion falls short of the promise of "cardioid with depth cues" due to the lack of sheer intensity a constant directivity system achieves. There is always something fraudulent in the box presentation, most believe it is defined in phase, crossover maladies, etc. but I think it's even more elemental than this. True depth, actual stage placement formed from a stereo recording is an illusion itself, and no matter how one defines that image, it's illusory from it's inception to it's conception, to it's perception.
I guess I should wave the white flag now, but is it any wonder we have not bettered it with multi channel as of yet? I might agree with Toole but does anyone believe that five (or 7, 8?) MBL's in a surround format is our future?
Should we look more closely at the way sound radiates, before we commend a growing trend to the spectre of the box?
Obviously, something has to give, and if multi channel is the wave, then omni is going to be lost in the reflections.
The real world gets in the way of a commercial and domestically viable surround system that could consistently better Stereo for music.
WAF is low enough with full size hifi, surround sound from decent size speakers considerably lower. Properly placed speakers, identical height and dedicated to accurate steering of the sound is a real world no no for far too many people.
It is obvious that this is the real reason behind a lack of serious investment in better surround beyond more whizz bang for the movies. Who can accommodate it?
Quite apart from speaker quality and placement demands, budget requirements there is also the thorny issue of how it is handled. As with 3dtv (mostly tacky gimmick) how to handle the presentation, loud crass and obvious or more realistic, muted and subtle or whizz bang buy me now special effects.
Surround sound is badly served if the engineers do not know what to do with it and put the instruments behind your head!
I wonder how many times well produced surround mixes have been binned because a studio exec says "I cannot hear the rear channels!"
WAF is low enough with full size hifi, surround sound from decent size speakers considerably lower. Properly placed speakers, identical height and dedicated to accurate steering of the sound is a real world no no for far too many people.
It is obvious that this is the real reason behind a lack of serious investment in better surround beyond more whizz bang for the movies. Who can accommodate it?
Quite apart from speaker quality and placement demands, budget requirements there is also the thorny issue of how it is handled. As with 3dtv (mostly tacky gimmick) how to handle the presentation, loud crass and obvious or more realistic, muted and subtle or whizz bang buy me now special effects.
Surround sound is badly served if the engineers do not know what to do with it and put the instruments behind your head!
I wonder how many times well produced surround mixes have been binned because a studio exec says "I cannot hear the rear channels!"
Incidently if you do want a sharply focused image, i.e pin sharp stereo imaging Pluto can give this to you in the n'th degree. By which I mean as sharply focused as you are likely to hear it from any type of speaker.
When used in close quarters (nearfield depending on your definition) Pluto can be used as a pin sharp, pinpoint "he is standing exactly there, next to him" point source mini monitor, some people do not like this:
In the works
I hear this precision from Pluto every day I listen, although I can dial it down by moving away from the speakers. By this I mean precise imaging becomes more open more relaxed, diffuse and natural (like real world environment) as you move away from the speakers.
I like listening to the stereo presentation both ways.
In case anyone confuses Cajunner's words with SL's....
SL booke review quote: "In this book Floyd Toole summarizes and explains conclusions from a lifelong involvement with audio. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in factual information about loudspeakers and listening rooms, about measurements, listening observations and their practical implications. It is lucidly written in easy to understand language, extensively illustrated and referenced. It deals with the reproduction of sound - which existed in a space - inside another space. My only regret is that the potential of 2-channel playback in doing so has not been fully explored. This is understandable because the conventional box loudspeaker with its frequency dependent directivity index has been used for almost all of the observations that are discussed. In fact, the particular interaction of a box loudspeaker with the listening room makes it more difficult for our ear/brain perceptual apparatus to hear the recording venue's space and acoustics, provided that such information has been captured in the recording process. Floyd focuses on multiple loudspeaker surround sound. He considers this approach to spatial sound reproduction as much more rewarding and he provides extensive practical information for that. The book is very comprehensive and in my opinion a "must-read" for loudspeaker designers, recording and mastering engineers, room-acoustic consultants, audio reviewers and audiophiles. The book is about theory and praxis. It debunks much of the BS that seems to have permeated the audio industry and many of its customers.
Enjoy!"
Last edited:
I am not arguing that there is a sharply defined image to the Pluto (agreed that it's distance/angle dependent) and I'm not trying to compare the Pluto to the Orion as much as I'd like to, as I have no experience with the Orion, but the presentation is not the same kind of imaging as one gets from a constant directivity system, there are whole chapters that could be written in comparing that I do not pretend to school anyone on.
the idea is that the multi channel, discrete or otherwise, should be incorporated into the 2 channel music recording realm, with replacement of stereo in mind.
this is not a backwards compatible move, once the room is set up properly for the discrete multi channel playback the stereo suffers, and vice versa.
I think this is why we run into these sort of discussions, the 2 channel omni/dipole system of playback is really about controlling the reflective environment, and diminution of the blur of dipole or omni speaker directivity or polar spreads by way of reverberation measure and controls, room treatment, gives way to the multi channel where the process of putting in all those spacial recognition cues comes from the recording without resorting to a matrices of rotation or the mental reprocessing of the stereo kind.
Stereo is inherently an Achilles design, it's interesting enough to always capture the imagination in it's simplistic sorcery but always has that quality that demands the mental processing to fashion the reproduction from neural/aural constructs.
Multi channel source localization, although imperfect as well considering the panning is limited by the complexity of multiple recording track/microphone placements, means that making that jump is going to be harder than it was from Logic7 or ProLogic's matrixing format to the discrete.
I guess what I mean to say is that the two playback systems are inherently at odds, I don't know how much more closely we'll get in producing the discrete format that also creates the stereo image in it's accessible, recognizable quality, as challenged as it is it remains the exclusive format of the pantheon of recording history, much more than that of the mono war..
the idea is that the multi channel, discrete or otherwise, should be incorporated into the 2 channel music recording realm, with replacement of stereo in mind.
this is not a backwards compatible move, once the room is set up properly for the discrete multi channel playback the stereo suffers, and vice versa.
I think this is why we run into these sort of discussions, the 2 channel omni/dipole system of playback is really about controlling the reflective environment, and diminution of the blur of dipole or omni speaker directivity or polar spreads by way of reverberation measure and controls, room treatment, gives way to the multi channel where the process of putting in all those spacial recognition cues comes from the recording without resorting to a matrices of rotation or the mental reprocessing of the stereo kind.
Stereo is inherently an Achilles design, it's interesting enough to always capture the imagination in it's simplistic sorcery but always has that quality that demands the mental processing to fashion the reproduction from neural/aural constructs.
Multi channel source localization, although imperfect as well considering the panning is limited by the complexity of multiple recording track/microphone placements, means that making that jump is going to be harder than it was from Logic7 or ProLogic's matrixing format to the discrete.
I guess what I mean to say is that the two playback systems are inherently at odds, I don't know how much more closely we'll get in producing the discrete format that also creates the stereo image in it's accessible, recognizable quality, as challenged as it is it remains the exclusive format of the pantheon of recording history, much more than that of the mono war..
Last edited:
Yes, stereo is fundamentally inaccurate, an illusion, a phantom.
Nonetheless the pursuit of the most believable phantom is a worthy goal.
We can call this the pursuit of accuracy, but accuracy to what? the original event or literal exact window on the soundtrack. It is not as if we know that the engineers heard a perfect representation of the recorded sounds in the first place, just another imperfect facsimile.
The general public is not crying out for super accurate multi channel audio for music.
Clever positional audio whether Surround sound produced with multiple discrete speakers or two highly directional speaker and clever DSP stunt audio effects with the listeners having to keep their heads in a vice like position are dead in the water for the mass market. For format success you need mass market dominance and user friendly simplicity.
maybe in a few years we will use super string and dark materia theory for speaker devellopment
well, I have heard about something called a dark black background
hey, Im joking😀
well, I have heard about something called a dark black background
hey, Im joking😀
maybe in a few years we will use super string and dark materia theory for speaker devellopment
well, I have heard about something called a dark black background
hey, Im joking😀
Well I have inadvertently trodden in some dark matter in my time and for that matter also heard some sh*t speakers too, does this qualify?
....... and for that matter also heard some sh*t speakers too, does this qualify?
could be, and especially if you are building better ones 😉
sorry I interrupted
