I know. Man i start to dislike a little bit the diy audio community. I feel like if i express an ideea, or something i need to rezume all my experience with audio and every knowledge i know about sound. Damn i don't have time for this, it should be self explanatory. People should answer more about the main subject not about the things around it
Damn, this escaladed quickly and always with discussion around the main subject, when you say something always they will find an answer around your meaning.
Small speakers small soundstage
{{When i am saying soundstage i am referring at a proper soundstage with details, imaging etc.}}
Big speakers big soundstage
Using big speakers in in a small "triangle" (lets say that, because if i say, space, people will teach me the reflexion theory)
Will give you a more dense soundstage/imaging.
The same with very small speakers, if you set them close to you
Small speakers small soundstage
{{When i am saying soundstage i am referring at a proper soundstage with details, imaging etc.}}
Big speakers big soundstage
Using big speakers in in a small "triangle" (lets say that, because if i say, space, people will teach me the reflexion theory)
Will give you a more dense soundstage/imaging.
The same with very small speakers, if you set them close to you
polar response is ofcourse the most important metric for imaging. demo of any descent dipole or omni would reveals that in seconds.
so what's better large dipoles or small omni's or vice versa?
and again we have yet another "opinion" without evidence as to why polar response is considered the most important (ughh) "metric" for imaging and still no way to quantify/judge it to assign merit.
and again we have yet another "opinion" without evidence as to why polar response is considered the most important (ughh) "metric" for imaging and still no way to quantify/judge it to assign merit.
The image, define that, and the rest will fall into place. Image is just another word for signature. Thats how I see it, anyone is free to disagree. We can measure anything we can hear, all these things exists within Phase, GD, FR, Decay.
@krivium "https://gemini.google.com/app" - We've talked about this before in the thread I believe.
@krivium "https://gemini.google.com/app" - We've talked about this before in the thread I believe.
Polar response is just an extension of IR. Like IR in 3d like I said before. An analogy; If you take the IR into the 3d and over time, in real time, you have a fancy RTA don't you? Sorta like a human...
Last edited:
??? ok if you say so Camplo...sorry that i consider that a very incomplete response...like i asked before if you can elaborate on how IR can serve as a means of quantifying/ measuring imaging i would be grateful.
Post in thread 'Soundstage' https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/soundstage.383500/post-6952992
Attachments
Eh, no, we can’t. We can measure anything audio system reproduces, but what we hear is an entirely different matter of our perception.
There are people that can’t ever hear stereo illusion provided by two sound sources. They always hear two distinct sound sources and nothing more.
I still wonder is that a super power or impairment.
"Original sizes and locations"...oh you mean Accuracy? Finally you agree! =)
"The production of stable, specific phantom images of the correct localization and width" .... how many different ways can you describe accurate playback, this is getting ridiculous...
there is nothing being added or taken away in an accurate reproduction... Its never 100% accurate but its definitely close enough. We are not adding a phantom image... its encoded in the signal.... if we recreate the signal accurately, we have not detoured from the original signal, thus we are not adding anything.
Original, Specific, Correct....... Accurate. The rest is a matter of interpreting the measurements, but it can be measured and in its most basic form you have an IR.
What we perceive, is an entirely different matter, I said we can measure anything we can hear.
No idea, pretty cool though.
As @multitask has said already.... If you could employ such technology (like anear field machine) to see the dispersion of your stereo system in situ, in 3d... that would be a good picture of the "image". Just a single IR in one position is not where I was going with this.
Last edited:
I don't think its that deep. Everything you can find that talks about a definition of "image" will likely agree with the words Accuracy so its not a hard sell.
Polars are taken with things like Near field machines. They show you the signature of the sound from many different angles. If you could employ technology, or should I have said, technique, since anyone can take a multitude of measurements and then add them together to create the 3d image... The image is 3d.... the image portrayed by the signal is 2d if simple L/F stereo.... are you seeing the connection yet?
I've heard small speakers image very well, and big speakers that failed. And speakers are not the only devices in the audio chain that creates the image. I think -like camplo- that an accurate system image good automatically, when placed in a proper acoustic environment. And accuracy can be measured. As a side note, how this accuracy may be perceived, is another story.
Wow 75 messages in a day hot thread indeed.
Well my three cents: (1) diyaudio is probably not the best forum to share or argue audio science; (2) my highest "transcient-fidelity" systems are also "deepest-soundstge" (or put vice-versa), but I don't know which is chicken and which is egg (eh...); and (3) I "isolated" (disentangled) depth-perception from so-called stereo imaging, with numerous experiments that anyone could readily perform and possibly measure -- at least in the classic manner of Fletcher et al. (1934).
Hello All,
This is the stuff of real science, we are not talking climate.
This is the stuff of human perception and AI and virtual reality. As in proprietary research. You can glimpse some looking at current AES publications.
This is the science of human perception.
A sample:
https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com...31d5c53000358000350&rr=90bd6fa0ea466434&cc=us
This is the stuff of real science, we are not talking climate.
This is the stuff of human perception and AI and virtual reality. As in proprietary research. You can glimpse some looking at current AES publications.
This is the science of human perception.
A sample:
https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com...31d5c53000358000350&rr=90bd6fa0ea466434&cc=us
Dude, it is February in my place (54.687157, 25.279652) and we had snow on ground only for less than 10 days this winter, including the days when it was melting... This winter until now is by far the warmest in my not so long lifetime. BY FAR! That is a fact. "Soundstage" is less scientific. But both (climate warming and soundstage) are real.
This sentence is not nescessary, it give a sour taste to your message, as always with politics and denial of facts happening everywhere over our small stone, being Cali, Britanny,... list is too long. Can be interpreted as really arrogant by victims of this things too.
Too bad as the link is very interesting.
And mind you, the advances which make this kind of research to be able to take place are the same which gives climate and weather models the accuracy they have now.
Last edited: