One problem at home is how different various recordings are. Is low bass stereo or mono, how various instruments were recorded (near/far/mix) etc. There is huge difference between pop, acoustic jazz and symponony orchesta to name a few. Then add synthesized ambience effects etc.
I am most critical about how acoustic jazz and classical music sounds, some of it is monophonic "vintage classics" that should create sharp virtual mono image. My stereo speaker sets are fullrange 25-20.000Hz. My main listening room has dipoles on the long wall of a big room and second set is small room corner-placed "normal" 3-ways and boy do they sound different! We must understand the limitations of the room and setup possibilities.
I am not at all intersted in multichannel sound, but I can play 5.0/1 with two sets. I have also heard Genelec Atmos demos a couple of times, but with typical demo material. Setting up good multichannel is very difficult and music recordings are rare and expensive. Also mixing/panning varies in mch recordings. Movie sounds are never very realistic, so sound cannot be compared to anything (unless you have seen it at a certified theatre)
ps. there is no absolute reference for reproduced sound except the mixer/producer's seat in a studio. Live music sounds different at different venues.
I am most critical about how acoustic jazz and classical music sounds, some of it is monophonic "vintage classics" that should create sharp virtual mono image. My stereo speaker sets are fullrange 25-20.000Hz. My main listening room has dipoles on the long wall of a big room and second set is small room corner-placed "normal" 3-ways and boy do they sound different! We must understand the limitations of the room and setup possibilities.
I am not at all intersted in multichannel sound, but I can play 5.0/1 with two sets. I have also heard Genelec Atmos demos a couple of times, but with typical demo material. Setting up good multichannel is very difficult and music recordings are rare and expensive. Also mixing/panning varies in mch recordings. Movie sounds are never very realistic, so sound cannot be compared to anything (unless you have seen it at a certified theatre)
ps. there is no absolute reference for reproduced sound except the mixer/producer's seat in a studio. Live music sounds different at different venues.
Last edited:
Bruno Fazenda's thesis from 2004 https://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint...l_listening_spaces-BFazenda-PhDThesis2004.pdf
From abstract:
"Results show that the subjective perception of room modes is strongly affected by temporal issues, and that changes exerted merely on magnitude frequency response are detectable but not likely to remove the effects of resonances for all listeners. Furthermore, it is shown that a reduction of the modal Q-factor, associated with a reduction of decay rates, has a significant effect in decreasing the detection of resonances. Q-factor difference limen were evaluated for three reference decay characteristics corresponding to reference Q-factors of 30, 10 and 1. The limen were 6±2.8, 10±4.1 and 16±5.4 respectively, meaning that detection of changes to modal decay decreases with decreasing decay time."
From abstract:
"Results show that the subjective perception of room modes is strongly affected by temporal issues, and that changes exerted merely on magnitude frequency response are detectable but not likely to remove the effects of resonances for all listeners. Furthermore, it is shown that a reduction of the modal Q-factor, associated with a reduction of decay rates, has a significant effect in decreasing the detection of resonances. Q-factor difference limen were evaluated for three reference decay characteristics corresponding to reference Q-factors of 30, 10 and 1. The limen were 6±2.8, 10±4.1 and 16±5.4 respectively, meaning that detection of changes to modal decay decreases with decreasing decay time."
@fluid His website is awfully disorganized, true. But he shares a wealth of information that's very hard to find elsewhere.
I mentioned the stereo bass because it goes against a lot of other proposals of what to do in a room, including multi-sub solutions.
Fazenda may very well be combined with Griesinger's theories to create a superb solution.
Me neither, but I am interested to get the most out of my stereo library.
In a good venue one can experience envelopping sound, I can tell you it's quite seductive to get something similar at home.
I mentioned the stereo bass because it goes against a lot of other proposals of what to do in a room, including multi-sub solutions.
Fazenda may very well be combined with Griesinger's theories to create a superb solution.
You need to fix that 😉.
Me neither, but I am interested to get the most out of my stereo library.
In a good venue one can experience envelopping sound, I can tell you it's quite seductive to get something similar at home.
Last edited:
Indeed, but I am as slow at rebuilding rooms as I am at making speakers. The combination is a recipe for delay 🙂
You are doing better than me. I stepped away from speaker design/build for 20 years to dedicate my time to my career.
You seem to be making up for lost time now 🙂
Lol, although the room the speakers will go in is finished it is now full of everything else needed to complete the last room 🤦♂️ It is a reasonable size and with the floor to ceiling absorber panels in there and some other stuff of life, the room is nice to be in and quiet.
Seems to me, both logically and from personal experience, what Griesinger says almost has to be true.
I think when early reelections are tuned acoustically to integrate well with direct sound, sound detail is highly likely to improve.
And when late reflections are are sufficiently diffused to create diffuse envelopment, or absorbed to smooth out the room's time decay response, sound detail is again highly like to increase.
Mainly because if these things are not acoustically accomplished, both early and late reflections have a likelihood of mucking up the inherent detail in direct sound.
I know from several rooms I tried to acoustically optimize, including one all-out effort designed from the ground up, taking those steps acoustically paid off in spades as far as increasing detail.
Within the domain of in-room, I think it makes 100% sense, that detail and envelopment can march in terms of improvement.
Moving to outside the box thinking (Lol)....leaving the domain of in-room... and taking it outside...
Both logically and from experience, sound detail and envelopment decouple.
Envelopment obviously decreases due to reduced early reflections, and far less late reflections.
Sound detail increases and can be quite dramatic.
I can only attribute this to greatly diminished room reflections, no matter how excellent a room might be acoustically.
So for me, the two in-doors and outdoors, are animals different enough, that comparisons of their pinnacle abilities don't make sense.
I love both environments. They each show me what they do best, as well as what's missing in the other.
I cooked up a 4-way system using dual 15inch Cardioid bass-lower mid module + SB15CAC +SB26 CDC to check and compare how a relatively wide system might sound like in comparison with the horn-based system
Here is the 4 way system config details
For comparison, here is the 3way horn-based system config vs 4way system config
4-way system
3-way system with EXAR 400
In-room response from MLP for both systems (for the right speaker)
3-way system decay
4-way system decay
And the recording of the speakers playing the same song in the same setting
My impressions of the 2 speakers playing in stereo
1) On the 4-way system, the imaging is a tiny bit hazy, but the sound is overall more "soft" than the 3-way horn system. I can listen to this easily for more time and my wife likes this one better 😉
On the horn system, it feels like the sound is more "etched/more defined overall (maybe because of more direct sound). It captures attention better
2) On the 4-way system, the feeling of spaciousness is a little bit more compared to the 3way system
3) The 3-way system sounds very hazy from the kitchen on the other side of a wall. The horn system still sounds attenuated by tonally very similar I think..
4) Sometimes, when I am listening in person, I think I am hearing more details in the treble on the 4-way system than the horn system. But when I record it and listen, both sound very similar. My hypothesis is that the horn system captures all of one's attention to the vocal range and doesn't allow one to focus on the upper treble details. Whereas the 4 way system with its "softer" sound allows one to focus the attention over a broader range of frequencies more easily..
Overall, I don't think I have found anything new w.r.t listening impressions and it may all be along expected lines.. But ultimately I think it is a matter of preference, which kind of sound one likes better.
I think I want the imaging of the horn system + the tiny bit softer sound of the other system 😀 (I tried out adjusting the listening distance for altering direct-to-reflected sound ratio with the 4way system but it still falls short of the horn system's capability w.r.t imaging )
Here is the 4 way system config details
For comparison, here is the 3way horn-based system config vs 4way system config
4-way system
3-way system with EXAR 400
In-room response from MLP for both systems (for the right speaker)
3-way system decay
4-way system decay
And the recording of the speakers playing the same song in the same setting
My impressions of the 2 speakers playing in stereo
1) On the 4-way system, the imaging is a tiny bit hazy, but the sound is overall more "soft" than the 3-way horn system. I can listen to this easily for more time and my wife likes this one better 😉
On the horn system, it feels like the sound is more "etched/more defined overall (maybe because of more direct sound). It captures attention better
2) On the 4-way system, the feeling of spaciousness is a little bit more compared to the 3way system
3) The 3-way system sounds very hazy from the kitchen on the other side of a wall. The horn system still sounds attenuated by tonally very similar I think..
4) Sometimes, when I am listening in person, I think I am hearing more details in the treble on the 4-way system than the horn system. But when I record it and listen, both sound very similar. My hypothesis is that the horn system captures all of one's attention to the vocal range and doesn't allow one to focus on the upper treble details. Whereas the 4 way system with its "softer" sound allows one to focus the attention over a broader range of frequencies more easily..
Overall, I don't think I have found anything new w.r.t listening impressions and it may all be along expected lines.. But ultimately I think it is a matter of preference, which kind of sound one likes better.
I think I want the imaging of the horn system + the tiny bit softer sound of the other system 😀 (I tried out adjusting the listening distance for altering direct-to-reflected sound ratio with the 4way system but it still falls short of the horn system's capability w.r.t imaging )
Attachments
Reflecting about this more, I think this attention getting focused to specific frequency ranges (like in the horn system) based on directivity is expected..
When we get more direct sound (compared to reflected sound) in the range of frequencies where directivity plays an important role (700Hz to 7kHz?), our brain might tend to get locked on to that range (where we get more direct sound) and divert our attention away from other frequencies resulting in perceiving "missing details" in sound (actually caused by brain not focussing on it).. This could be why I thought I was able to hear more details in upper treble with the dome tweeter in small waveguide vs horn system. But in recordings, both sounded very close in terms of details..
So the solution/design approach for better results would be to make the variation in directivity as less and as smooth(ly rising) as possible in probably (ideally full range) the range of 700 Hz to 7kHz. Big kinks/steps in directivity might make the brain focus on musical content in the range of frequencies where this happens I guess (depending upon the magnitude of changes).. If it is a smoothly changing directivity over a wide range, maybe our brains have an easier time focusing on full range instead of selected frequency ranges..
When we get more direct sound (compared to reflected sound) in the range of frequencies where directivity plays an important role (700Hz to 7kHz?), our brain might tend to get locked on to that range (where we get more direct sound) and divert our attention away from other frequencies resulting in perceiving "missing details" in sound (actually caused by brain not focussing on it).. This could be why I thought I was able to hear more details in upper treble with the dome tweeter in small waveguide vs horn system. But in recordings, both sounded very close in terms of details..
So the solution/design approach for better results would be to make the variation in directivity as less and as smooth(ly rising) as possible in probably (ideally full range) the range of 700 Hz to 7kHz. Big kinks/steps in directivity might make the brain focus on musical content in the range of frequencies where this happens I guess (depending upon the magnitude of changes).. If it is a smoothly changing directivity over a wide range, maybe our brains have an easier time focusing on full range instead of selected frequency ranges..
I don't know if kinks/steps make yourself change brain focus but it have an effect on reverbered sound for sure. And as we hear a mix of both direct and reverberated it have an effect on rendering. Frequency range in which it happen seems to have different effect on rendering and how we perceive it ime.
This bump in the direct sound around 1 kHz can't sound good, IMO. Even if the "correction" meant a dip in the power response (which depends on the crossover), I'm pretty sure this is much worse subjectively.
I agree with @mabat about the peak and I (and my brother) prefer the 4-way system: the voicing of the 4-way is more balanced than the horn system (has too much sibilants and the voice of the singer seems too thin).
That said, I would not use a song with instruments (voice included) that are electronically manipulated to evaluate a system because you loose all the reference points: opera, classical music, acoustic instruments, etc. are much more suited imo.
That said, I would not use a song with instruments (voice included) that are electronically manipulated to evaluate a system because you loose all the reference points: opera, classical music, acoustic instruments, etc. are much more suited imo.
Where you there during takes of opera, classical, acoustic instruments? And have you had the chance to locate your head where mics where? If not then difference with electronally manipulated music ( in facts all music even classical!) Is moot.
In fact except your own recordings ( and i would add of non musical message like ambiance of your backyard or things like that,...) there is no way a recording can help 'evaluate' a system if you are not the recording, mixing or mastering engineer.
This can give limited info about how you are used to hear in your own place but that's the best you can expect.
In fact except your own recordings ( and i would add of non musical message like ambiance of your backyard or things like that,...) there is no way a recording can help 'evaluate' a system if you are not the recording, mixing or mastering engineer.
This can give limited info about how you are used to hear in your own place but that's the best you can expect.
Thanks @mabat for pointing this out..
I posted the wrong crossover for the horn system.
Actually, the crossover was this
@shadowplay62: If you meant sibilance in the youtube video, please ignore the sibilance part because I found that it is just there in all my recordings.. I think it has something to do with all the late reflections captured by the mic. So while listening in person, the sibilance in all my videos have been much less..
I posted the wrong crossover for the horn system.
Actually, the crossover was this
@shadowplay62: If you meant sibilance in the youtube video, please ignore the sibilance part because I found that it is just there in all my recordings.. I think it has something to do with all the late reflections captured by the mic. So while listening in person, the sibilance in all my videos have been much less..
Wishing a merry Christmas and a very happy new year to everyone.. 🙂
I would still shift the WG branch ~1 dB lower 🙂
I wonder how something like this would sound like.. 😀
Shallow waveguide on Bliesma T34A
Shallow waveguide on Bliesma T34A