Toole said "may" 🙄 Like coincident miking, directional cues in pan potted recordings are mostly intensity based... The "distortion of words" level is raising quickly in this thread.
Last edited:
Are you not aware that professional researchers never put their words in a too absolute manner. It is for us mortals to understand that "may" is a relatively strong statement already, indicative that something is much more likely than not likely.
- Elias
maybe the ideas you guys speak of are the reason i prefer mono to stereo when im listening outside with small scale setups. The 'free party' in field scenario.
I dont fully understand everything you speak of, but my ears arent as handicapped.
As an aside, i have an album 'binaural' by pearl jam. Sounds great using 'phones, and also my speakers. I wonder if its recorded binaurally?
I dont fully understand everything you speak of, but my ears arent as handicapped.
As an aside, i have an album 'binaural' by pearl jam. Sounds great using 'phones, and also my speakers. I wonder if its recorded binaurally?
Last edited:
I know "science speak" but I also can read and I don't try to draw conclusions from "mays" especially when the man also says this without any "may": "the Blumlien stereo effects work best in an almost anechoic situation".
Okay, but you didn't say "may", you said:
What Toole said was:
"For stereo listening I have found that it very much depends on the program."
Note the use of 'very much depends'.
Also:
"In the past, I have recommended that serious stereo listeners hang absorbent drapes along each side wall, pulling them out and pushing them back to suit what they are listening to."
So, from a man suggesting that room treatments be adjustable due to variable requirements of the program material, you have deduced that there is always a benefit from room reflections.
We don't say "may" to indicate a likelihood, for that we use "probably" or "usually" or "most often". "May" tends to be reserved for outliers, stray possibilities that might contradict an otherwise accurate generalisation.
(You can call me Grammy Grammar if you wish. 😛)
While I'm on the subject, yes the meaning of a word is important. We use words to construct thoughts, and a limited vocabulary limits how complexly and precisely you can think, never mind communicate to others. This is why technical terms have very precise definitions.
However, engineers think in mathematical terms, and they do this so they can see that the wheel on a car has a lot in common with a woofer cone (moving mass, variable spring, damping) and just maybe some clever solution from F1 racing may get applied to speaker design. Using a technical term in a way it's not normally applied, referencing the actual math behind the concept, can shatter our paradigms, get us to "think outside the box", and perhaps provide some insight.
So no, we shouldn't go around referring to baffles as "horns" on a regular basis, but being reminded that the underlying math is the same shouldn't get your frump up.
However, engineers think in mathematical terms, and they do this so they can see that the wheel on a car has a lot in common with a woofer cone (moving mass, variable spring, damping) and just maybe some clever solution from F1 racing may get applied to speaker design. Using a technical term in a way it's not normally applied, referencing the actual math behind the concept, can shatter our paradigms, get us to "think outside the box", and perhaps provide some insight.
So no, we shouldn't go around referring to baffles as "horns" on a regular basis, but being reminded that the underlying math is the same shouldn't get your frump up.
I found a very readible paper by Manfred Schroeder or concert halls the other days.
http://w2.nada.kth.se/music/publications/kma/papers/kma26-ocr.pdf
Jump to his page 22 (pdf 27) and read what he says about early lateral reflections. He feels that binaural disimilarity between the ears was the number one determinant of a hall's preference ranking. "Subjective preference reached its maximum for zero binaural similarity". The only way to achieve that is with sounds coming at the ears from well off the frontal direction, in fact I think it peaks out at about 60 degrees from the front. The surest way to achieve it in a concert hall is with narrow shoebox shaped rooms. With wider rooms the lateral energy arrives late. With fan shaped halls it bounces rearwords rather than sideways.
Now the problem with stereo is that you place the speakers at 25 to 30 degrees from the front and inherently increase the binaural similarity (higher IACC or making the signals in the two ears or more monophonic). This has always been done to keep the sound roughly in front of you with no hole in the middle. All those nice wide angle early reflections are nonexistent unless the room can, even roughly, contribute them.
Without them, even with perfect 2 channel reproduction, you are converting a reproduced concert hall into an inferior article. Boston Symphony hall, narrow and shoebox shaped that has those nice early lateral reflections, is reproduced more like a wide fan shaped hall with poor lateral energy (Avery Fisher hall, etc.).
Music reproduction isn't just about clean playback of an impulse response.
David S.
http://w2.nada.kth.se/music/publications/kma/papers/kma26-ocr.pdf
Jump to his page 22 (pdf 27) and read what he says about early lateral reflections. He feels that binaural disimilarity between the ears was the number one determinant of a hall's preference ranking. "Subjective preference reached its maximum for zero binaural similarity". The only way to achieve that is with sounds coming at the ears from well off the frontal direction, in fact I think it peaks out at about 60 degrees from the front. The surest way to achieve it in a concert hall is with narrow shoebox shaped rooms. With wider rooms the lateral energy arrives late. With fan shaped halls it bounces rearwords rather than sideways.
Now the problem with stereo is that you place the speakers at 25 to 30 degrees from the front and inherently increase the binaural similarity (higher IACC or making the signals in the two ears or more monophonic). This has always been done to keep the sound roughly in front of you with no hole in the middle. All those nice wide angle early reflections are nonexistent unless the room can, even roughly, contribute them.
Without them, even with perfect 2 channel reproduction, you are converting a reproduced concert hall into an inferior article. Boston Symphony hall, narrow and shoebox shaped that has those nice early lateral reflections, is reproduced more like a wide fan shaped hall with poor lateral energy (Avery Fisher hall, etc.).
Music reproduction isn't just about clean playback of an impulse response.
David S.
Dave, your very correct but you do want those qualities and great frequency response also or all bets are off.
Dave
You should know better than to quote conclusions, correct as they are, for concert halls having any validity for small rooms.
Impulse responses are a tool, not a desired result.
You should know better than to quote conclusions, correct as they are, for concert halls having any validity for small rooms.
Impulse responses are a tool, not a desired result.
Sure, a room is not a concert hall. Dimensions determine reflection times and those need to be in the right range.
But the point remains that striving for higher directivity and a deader listening environment may give a cleaner system measurement but that is only a part of the story. If every modern paper on concert hall design speaks to the importance of wide angle lateral reflections, shouldn't we be leery of a playback system that inherently minimizes what acousticians prize?
If we are stuck with two channels (we aren't, I have a shelf full of SACDs) then we should seriously consider what realism (not necessarily accuracy) requires.
Yes, maybe it is time for another Magic Loudspeaker.
David S
Last edited:
One of the best sounding speakers ever made(Even in the minds of the biggest wide dispersion supporters), is the Quad esl, a very narrow dispersion speaker.
This (Very subjective in some "blasted" ways) white paper by Roger Sanders is worth reading. He does make some very good points..
Dispersion White Paper
This (Very subjective in some "blasted" ways) white paper by Roger Sanders is worth reading. He does make some very good points..
Dispersion White Paper
Last edited:
dunno, maybe before the angle is equal to, or more obtuse than the existing cone/rubber surround or in the case of tweeters, the surround/faceplate.... i'd accept foam for ribbons and magneplanars maybe; since they often dont have anything else, not even a ridge
something thats trying to reinforce and narrow the lense more than the aperture of the guide in the original design, not just cleaning up spill. it would be very rare for a driver not to already have some minimal WG in place, even if its just a beveled ridge around a dome
then someone would need to come up with a term for the wider effect. which I suppose has already happened with boundary loading? I know i'm being a bit pedantic, but otherwise its quite diluted IMO. do people talking about boundary loading or other such related environmental effects in the context of loudspeakers really have to be reminded of the relation to waveguides or horns?
Last edited:
Geddes is right. Lateral diffuson from behind is better then only diffusion arriving from the back wall though.
To mimic the best narrow concert halls in a small room would be toally detrimental. In those concert halls the sidewall reflections are arriving in the area of 18-25 ms. That's very different then what we experience in small rooms.
Listening to a recording is also something else. Reflections from the sides in the front of the room, as well as other early reflections, needs to be attenuated as much as possible if on wants to be taken to the concert hall and recording place. Redirection is often a better way to do that rather then absorption. This can give a good illusion of being there.
To mimic the best narrow concert halls in a small room would be toally detrimental. In those concert halls the sidewall reflections are arriving in the area of 18-25 ms. That's very different then what we experience in small rooms.
Listening to a recording is also something else. Reflections from the sides in the front of the room, as well as other early reflections, needs to be attenuated as much as possible if on wants to be taken to the concert hall and recording place. Redirection is often a better way to do that rather then absorption. This can give a good illusion of being there.
Dilemmas everywhere...
It's said that it'd better to place speakers along the shorter wall to have larger depth.
And now it seems side wall reflection is bad, too (if not worse). How about moving the speakers to the long wall? So the side wall reflections would be delayed longer.
It's said that it'd better to place speakers along the shorter wall to have larger depth.
And now it seems side wall reflection is bad, too (if not worse). How about moving the speakers to the long wall? So the side wall reflections would be delayed longer.
The front wall reflection will cause colouration, the side wall reflection will mostly cause spatial effects. Too close to the side wall is definitely not good, but in general a side wall reflection does less damage than a rear wall reflection. Depends on the layout of the room and the directivity of the speaker though.
...or why not use additional width/height speakers with the advantage that a longer delay could be used 🙂
In this thread we are talkin about living room environment, which pretty much rules out absorbers and diffusers.
Kantor's Magic Speaker is a step into the right direction in using side walls for spaciousness enhancement. However, the stated specifications are based on utopia in a typical living room environment for example 20 ms reflection free zone.
- Elias
Kantor's Magic Speaker is a step into the right direction in using side walls for spaciousness enhancement. However, the stated specifications are based on utopia in a typical living room environment for example 20 ms reflection free zone.
- Elias
- Status
- Not open for further replies.