classicalfan, how big is your room? The Americans and Canadians here, who've responded, have large rooms. Mine is small, my speakers aren't CD, I wish they were, anything other than nearfield listening sounds pretty bad, I don't want to go down the road of acoustic treatment.
well, actually early reflections are nothing else than six (6) virtual additional channels, each with its own delay, attenuation, angle and filtering, and all of it can in fact be controlled
ps.
taking into account earliest secondary reflections (corners) - 10 virtual additional channels
a whole lot
ps.
taking into account earliest secondary reflections (corners) - 10 virtual additional channels
a whole lot
Last edited:
Sometimes I wonder is audio science and test listeners interested in dimensions of sound stage, ambience and positions of apparent sources. Where the h*** is discussion about accurate music reproduction, or is it just images, space between them and envelopment by reflections, seen with ears. And then we (not me) discuss about trade-offs between image positions and spaces etc.
Are those two things (accuracy and realistic soundstage) in contradiction?
I think that there is a lot of discussions about spatial aspects because space is difficult to be done right, space and bass - two most difficult problems
Besides ...thou must no forget - "Space is the place" 😀
Could be. At least the highest priority to apparent sources, spaciousness and envelopment simply means "not the highest" priority to accuracy.
My philosophy is that sound stage or whatever 3D apparent image is just result of recording, reproduction system, environment (listening room), setup and physical features of listener. Too abstract consequence of many features uncontrollable by speakers alone to be primary design goal of the speaker. Not totally different than live music experience which explains why these features are preferred and weighted in discussion. So I understand why it's interesting, but excessive focus eats energy from controllable root parameters of accurate sound.
I think we're on the same track.
Speaking of which, here's an anology: if you don't know the road conditions, it's impossible to build a vehicle that will perform optimal. If you don't control the road conditions, the vehicle you build will perform sub-optimal. A F1 car only does it's magic on a racetrack. We can discuss the qualities of the car endlessly, eating all the energy. Or we regard the total system and focus on the real wins.
Speaking of which, here's an anology: if you don't know the road conditions, it's impossible to build a vehicle that will perform optimal. If you don't control the road conditions, the vehicle you build will perform sub-optimal. A F1 car only does it's magic on a racetrack. We can discuss the qualities of the car endlessly, eating all the energy. Or we regard the total system and focus on the real wins.
Am I to understand that You exclude accurate rendition of "apparent sources, spaciousness and envelopment" from Your definition of accuracy? How do You define it then?
Radically too simplified definition would be low linear and non-linear distortions including dynamics and different types of inter-modulations, but that can not be everything as long as we're talking about reproductions with speakers. There is sound stage, apparent sources and interaction between speakers and environment (room); reflections, resonances, ambience, maybe some envelopment, early and total energy spectrum etc. Extension to 'radically too simplified' definition could be balanced operation of speakers and balanced reaction between speakers and environment.
Balanced reaction could include for example off-axis/directivity and power spectrum.
Balanced operation could include for example compression spectrum compliant with music spectrum (not flat), controlled wavefront, balanced off-axis/directivity and power, and 'projection spectrum' i.e. balanced depth information which depends on features of individual radiators or groups (relative to wave length).
Anyway, apparent sources, spaciousness and envelopment are rather results of several features than primary goals for design(er). Indirect and complex result is quite fuzzy as design goal or subject of trade off discussion no matter how good benchmark it's for sound quality or preference of "average citizen Kane" or individual diy enthusiast.
Question remains disputable - what to do with reflections?
Or to put it differently - is it beneficial for the sound quality (accuracy? realism? enjoyjment?) to suppress reflections, being virtual additional channels, and introduce some real additional channels instead, whereas the recording itself remains two-channel?
Or to put it differently - is it beneficial for the sound quality (accuracy? realism? enjoyjment?) to suppress reflections, being virtual additional channels, and introduce some real additional channels instead, whereas the recording itself remains two-channel?
In the 1990's I used to listen to a system at an acquaintance's home. His system was very high end in comparison to what I had at the time... In addition to his main 2 channel system, he had a pair of small speakers in the back of the room, and he fed them with a 20 to 50 ms delay, at a level of -10 to -20 dB. It was very program dependent. On some recordings it just sounded weird. Others it made the room seem a little bigger. But on some, it was magical. He had a notebook which had the correct settings (delay and dB) for each CD / album. I don't remember the name of the equipment he was using.
So yes, this kind of enhancement can be beneficial.
Kimmo has a good point: A wide, deep the three dimensional ambience means little if the violins and clarinets all sound like a screachy mess, and electric bass and kick drum have no articulation or punch...
So yes, this kind of enhancement can be beneficial.
Kimmo has a good point: A wide, deep the three dimensional ambience means little if the violins and clarinets all sound like a screachy mess, and electric bass and kick drum have no articulation or punch...
^^Just use your preferences. Good (accurate and balanced) speaker enables many different policies/approaches, environments and setups to play with pinpoint apparent sources or reflections only by aiming speakers to front top corners or whatever.
The best compensation for the sound radiating from the speakers is to open the windows in the room, or better yet, run the speakers outside. Something like that :
los beatles en la azotea - YouTube
los beatles en la azotea - YouTube
One option is to accept them.
The way I see it, if I paid a 3-piece jazz band to play in my living room, there would be reflections. It would sound just like there was a 3-piece jazz band playing in my living room (surprise, surprise).
So when I play back the studio-recorded 3-piece jazz band, I accept the fact that it sounds like they are playing in my living room. If the sound of the studio "gets out of the way" then the best experience I can hope for is that it sounds like the band is playing in my living room (reflections included).
I think omnis or semi-omnis in a medium to large room make it much easier to accept. Oddly, it even works well enough when I "invite" a choir or an orchestra into my living room.
Last edited:
It should work even better because:
But that is also program dependent - some recordings are so dry that the described process doesn't apply.