Hello All,
It is not about narrow or wide dispersion it is about controlled dispersion and controlled reflections.
Directivity index is on-axis minus room power.
Since this is a horn thread, most likely you will use a horn or waveguide to control dispersion. If you are able you will select a directivity Index / constant-directivity horn to match your room size, room treatments and personal taste. Be careful to select a crossover frequency to allow a smooth continuous room power curve.
For consistent use of terms and thought see the attached ANSI Standard document.
Thanks DT
It is not about narrow or wide dispersion it is about controlled dispersion and controlled reflections.
Directivity index is on-axis minus room power.
Since this is a horn thread, most likely you will use a horn or waveguide to control dispersion. If you are able you will select a directivity Index / constant-directivity horn to match your room size, room treatments and personal taste. Be careful to select a crossover frequency to allow a smooth continuous room power curve.
For consistent use of terms and thought see the attached ANSI Standard document.
Thanks DT
It's obviously done on purpose. You could not count the number of effects pedals on guitars these days and it's all there on the recordings. They even intentionally dirty up vocals??
So in many cases high resolution with these recordings would be the ability to pick out the effects used and accurately reproduce the distortion added by these effects.
Rob
I absolutely agree, his findings aren't universally shared here. Earl Geddes, for example, disagrees with Toole on the type of preferred room reflections if I understand Geddes correctly. Although, I do think Geddes agrees on the relationship between music style and directivity, Geddes likes small studio music while Toole/Linkwitz like large orchestra and it influences the types of speakers they prefer. The thing I like about both Toole and Geddes is they use controlled experiments and scientific methodology to conduct their research. I use their work and experience as a baseline to try to prevent running in circles. And my problem is trying to make sure I understand their findings.
I suspect what happens is that people get more of a rush from one type of music rather than another and that tends to set their preferences for directivity and reflections. They don't get turned on by complex pop music but love jazz clarinet. So when they hear the type of speaker that makes their preference sound better they drift in that direction. I think other factors come into play too. People probably change preferences over time. People start out drinking Bud Light then drift toward strong IPAs as they gain experience. Of course, there's also peer influence. Someone might watch a YouTube video of Joe's system and hear the Audiophiliac gushing over it and then they start to think that's the ideal "high resolution" speaker.
I don't know if reflected energy improves intelligibility but I read something in Toole's book that I'm going to try out. Humans can't accurately localize inside the frequency range between 1,000Hz and 3,000Hz. Toole said you get a dip at 2,000Hz with stereo due to the destructive interference but that reflections fill in the void to improve intelligibility. So I'm going to try building an upper midrange module with wide dispersion to maximize reflections from 1,000Hz to 3,000Hz that narrows above 3,000Hz where humans exit the cone of confusion. I have no idea if it will work.
Are you talking about the wood horns or the 450lb subwoofers?
When I look at the horns my intuition is that it would be better to use a cardioid strategy. Humans aren't very good at low-mid localization so big horns like that are sort of a waste. Cardioid low-mids in smaller boxes to mitigate boundary effects and assist the transition through the sparse modal region make more sense to me.
When I look at the subwoofers I think it would be better to use lighter and smaller subs that can be more easily moved around the room because they're operating in the modal region. Also, low frequency modes are easy to excite inside a room so you don't need massive subwoofers.
On the other hand, I know people can be primed to experience auditory illusions. Joe's system is pretty neat in the sense it will prime a listener to believe they're going to hear a good stereo system. The visual information presented to the brain is going to prime the brain to believe it is experiencing good sound. I'm in favor of tricking the mind using visual information to make people think they are experiencing better music. Once I figure out how to create good speakers I'm going to start working on how to make them visually impressive to leverage visual priming. That's actually kind of difficult to do but Joe did it very well in my opinion.
No, no serious mixing or mastering engineer would claim to mix on headphones. Of course they check things with headphones, like for noise, clicks and so on, or for compatibility with the real world, but balances are hard to adjust on phones, much easier on speakers, especially the "crappy" midrangy studio classics like the Auratone or the Yamaha NS-10.
But there is usually a better speaker like ATC or Genelec around to do the general listening on.
What is stopping these people from connecting normal speakers with compression drivers to their smartphones? Even if they think the compression drivers sound bad, they can use the speakers with other tweeters
. I heard the cleaning lady listening to music from her smartphone. It definitely sounded bad.With this technology and at that time the recording technology had its climax (analog).
That used tubed mixing, mastering with old and crappy Altec speakers.
Those records sounded the best. No later transistor/ chip based amps/mixers achieved that transparency, colorful and vivid sounds.
If there would have been that big improvements that the marketing bla bla suggested, why most of the later recordings never made it to that quality of sound again?
I say overcompressed, overequalized, enhanced, overmixed, overdubbed and simply crappy sounding record productions today, compared to the best what was once possible. Either the modern sound engineers don't know better, have no better equipment or simply must act like that for the market who wanted the recordings to sound that way.
Nobody needs a company like "Augspurger" with their overpriced, pseudo-innovative studio speakers. Nothing new under this sun, they surely didn't re-invent speakers or improved on the old designs. If their speakers would sound as honest as the old Altec, anybody could hear what garbage they master on the recordings, but I bet they aren't capable of that any longer. They might be a big part of the problem rather to be a solution.
Bad monitor speakers- no help in producing good recordings. What's inside their active monitor speakers? A chip/transistor based amp of low audio quality, I suppose.
That used tubed mixing, mastering with old and crappy Altec speakers.
Those records sounded the best. No later transistor/ chip based amps/mixers achieved that transparency, colorful and vivid sounds.
If there would have been that big improvements that the marketing bla bla suggested, why most of the later recordings never made it to that quality of sound again?
I say overcompressed, overequalized, enhanced, overmixed, overdubbed and simply crappy sounding record productions today, compared to the best what was once possible. Either the modern sound engineers don't know better, have no better equipment or simply must act like that for the market who wanted the recordings to sound that way.
Nobody needs a company like "Augspurger" with their overpriced, pseudo-innovative studio speakers. Nothing new under this sun, they surely didn't re-invent speakers or improved on the old designs. If their speakers would sound as honest as the old Altec, anybody could hear what garbage they master on the recordings, but I bet they aren't capable of that any longer. They might be a big part of the problem rather to be a solution.
Bad monitor speakers- no help in producing good recordings. What's inside their active monitor speakers? A chip/transistor based amp of low audio quality, I suppose.
Attachments
Last edited:
Those people think their Iphone with earplugs is the new gold standard in audio sound.What is stopping these people from connecting normal speakers with compression drivers to their smartphones? Even if they think the compression drivers sound bad, they can use the speakers with other tweeters
What else should they believe? Marketing tells them. Those who know nothing must believe anything.
Have you ever heard MP3 with a high def. horn speaker? Sounds real garbage like.
I sold my TOTL tapedecks for R2R because it sounds so limited. Some people swear that couldn't be true.
Last edited:
I think you have a point there, those recordings seem to preserve something that is lost through all the meddling. Can similar be said for reproduction?
It's hard enough getting it correct in only one iteration. I don't believe you can simply turn a speaker a little towards a wall and say yes, I like more reflections. Other issues creep in.
Have you confirmed the 2k dip, what causes it? Can you measure it?
I don't think that's true.
I've heard great MP3's on many high definition horn and electrostats, speakers and headphones.
There's so much to what makes a quality recording, it's way beyond me.
The only thing i know, is any format can sound great.
SEOS24+DCX464, 15" mid bass, DBA 18" subs, cheap amps, minidsp 4x10, PC - may be not very high resolution)).
The records themselves differ very much ever in low res formats. For example Mephistofeles - Devotional Doom (Full Album 2017) - YouTube and Templum Anima Morti - ⍢χ͔Ω ΣằğΩth χ͔aᵲằǻϻ [Full - HD] - YouTube
The records themselves differ very much ever in low res formats. For example Mephistofeles - Devotional Doom (Full Album 2017) - YouTube and Templum Anima Morti - ⍢χ͔Ω ΣằğΩth χ͔aᵲằǻϻ [Full - HD] - YouTube
Sounds great compared to what? My tapedecks sounded great, too.
R2R, even with low speed, has blown them away.
So always when making a subjective statement, compare it with something better to have a real relationship, a benchmark.
Otherwise, I could say "My portable radio sounds quite good, too. But what does that mean, compared to any serious gear?
Abbey Road studios today. Low eff., low quality speakers and multi IC/ PC based mixing console. For sure that crappy sound could not be monitored first class with those budged speakers. This is lightyears below a good horn speaker system in terms of dynamic, true tone colors and efficiency. They will never be able to hear in reality what they deliver to the consumers. Technically this is deep 80s stuff with all those limitations and shortcomings that the audio industry downgraded in fact, could be heard by any of their recordings with a real excellent audio system.
Attachments
Last edited:
Joe, I think you are reffering to the guy with the horn system....you are saying that this is the ultimate system type material....capable of handling all genres.... Horns are the ultimate of Fidelity if basically your anthem. And the powers that be with who have money is no limitation, are not recreating Joes system out of ignorance.
I have to dissect that. Easiest way to compare systems is to compare measurements....Does Joe have measurements?
Joes system vs the world....Begin
Each contestant please submit their impulse/step response lol
With this one I feel like you are right and wrong...let me explain...the allure of analog was desirable affect of the harmonic distortion that was added to the content coincidently at first but then by intelligent design. Think of a distorted guitar in a rock song, you love the sound right? Well older analog tech added harmonic distortion no less...newer hardware is cleaner....digital is cleaner. It just so happens that we love the distortion of the older gear (for a large amount of content) ...My disconnect is that the older analog gear being better is not a choice made from chasing a perfect impulse but one of "I like what I like"......we also apparently like super loud music as well but everyone knows that louder sounds better....the ear compression mechanism are pressed past their thresholds and the FR response is compressed even flatter.... ( see the equal loudness curve)
Last edited:
Big statement....I am building my own pair of mastering monitors...I am using a horn up top...but I've drank the koolaid of this board...maybe we are just elitist? I doubt that but....why things went sour in the industry where SQ is a necessity, how they got removed from true high fidelity, sounds like you may be on to something, then again whens the last time I've heard some one call a set of B&W 800 series "Low eff., low quality speakers"
I'm not calling you a liar...I am just wanting to see the forest...I believe in the practice of using high sens/eff systems to achieve SQ....its just that I didn't perceive it to be leaps and bounds better than anything that is not a horn....not out of personal experience just from what I've gathered in my time of studying and experience....and the best imaging I've heard to date has been from a pair of altec 2 ways....but I also haven't heard other horn systems.
Last edited: