in my compact space, pluto type omnis and dipoles just need too much space to sound their best. Even then the 'ambience' overtakes any intelligibility and localisation very quickly. Of the two the dipole was better to my ears, but neither set my world on fire. What i need is a dipole minus rear output, i.e. Monopole or IB. Minimising ceiling reflections yielded far better results, and listening near to the rear wall helps the perception of the bass. Damping the rear wall improved again. Next im going to try a single lateral absorber. Relatively speaking, for me the best result with least effort or sacrifice in space, is to use judiciously placed absorbers and structure my listening space to suit.
It hardly matters in this respect what is perceived by us audiophiles to be correct or better quality, the study was done to find the general perception of sound.
It's with the refined experiment (described above) where all test subjects were critical listeners, ie. audiophiles, musicians, and sound technicians, we find the more interesting result.
Control rooms have large equalized (!) mains and at least one pair of speakers in the near field.
If you subscribe to D/R ratios then you DO subscribe to the precedence effect. Precedence is just a more differentiated way of looking at reverberation.
So what does that tell us? Does it mean that "most people" need two different sets of speakers depending what source they are listening to? Or does this tell us that we need different/more advanced reproduction techniques that can satisfy the taste of most? Multichannel comes to mind
Oh, I thought you were asking questions, but apparently you just wanted to argue.
I'm just giving my opinion.
when I said that I don't subscribe to the precedence effect I was speaking in terms of set distances rather than ratios, which I do subscribe to.
This effect describes the distance in which we can still localize the first wave front, usually 50ms to 100ms, beyond that, reflections are percieved as echoes. but these are time frames, I believe in ratios.
Control rooms equalize for flat on axis response for consistent reproduction in half space.....so we must add BSC for loudspeakers that are half omni and half directional if they are used away from the walls.
This will promote uneven power response.
I don't think the median response is a meaningful information in this case. The large variation in low frequency responses is rather shocking.
One more thing I was thinking about....
If the FR is split between direct and omni, wouldn't the direct sound (higher frequencies) be perceived as being closer than the lower frequencies?
We know that sound produced in an anechoic chamber will resemble a headphone sound.
We need reflections to approximate distance.
This is why I think that loudspeakers should be either totally directional, or totally omni.....or as close to these as physics will allow.
If the FR is split between direct and omni, wouldn't the direct sound (higher frequencies) be perceived as being closer than the lower frequencies?
We know that sound produced in an anechoic chamber will resemble a headphone sound.
We need reflections to approximate distance.
This is why I think that loudspeakers should be either totally directional, or totally omni.....or as close to these as physics will allow.
oh i agree. Partially. The 90% plot in particular showing the general statistical distribution of results is better than attitudes here would have us believe. A 5 dB shelf in the bass is not surprising, and isnt nearly as severe as some of the lesser plots. In general the statistical distribution is quite good, and the median backs this up. Im hardly concerned with the awful responses from the 10% distribution.
Of course, it would be a lot more transparent if the modal plot were shown.
Of course, it would be a lot more transparent if the modal plot were shown.
Last edited:
Maybe they should mix lower frequencies with headphones, this will also solve the problem of the doubling of lower frequencies as described with ambiophonics?
Myself, I like chocolate.
In another thread, the idea of using Tom Danley's speakers in a home environment was dismissed, but I think if someone tried that, they'd be quite pleased, and their friends very impressed. I've used three-way horns in a small, live room and they provided some of the most realistic reproduction I'd ever heard (given that at point I hadn't actually been to the Symphony or started working in studios, so my idea of "live" was either standing on-stage with the band, or listening to a PA).
The horns provided two things. One, not apropos to this thread but still important, was a massive reduction in distortion, both from the drivers and from the amplifiers. The other was directivity, and that made sitting across the room still a near field experience without the crowded feeling you often get from pulling your chair up close.
I get that some people expect to hear the room, as that is their experience. In my case, it's not. I don't hear the room standing next to the instrument or at the recording or FOH console (usually). I think what's needed for realism is SPLs, and lacking that, we each look for substitutes depending on the nature of our hearing. For some people flat response makes things more realistic, others will sacrifice that for impact. But what produces realism depends on one's experience, and the 'taste' of one's ears. Do you like salty food? That's likely because you have more sweet and sour than salt receptors on your tongue.
For the "average" person, i.e., not an audiophile listening critically, when an instrument or singer isn't as loud as they're supposed to be (which we can judge from cues in the recording), we tend to look for cues in the environment that explain why, the most likely culprit being distance. If there's enough reverb in the room to make the performer sound far enough away to explain the lower level, then one's brain relaxes and says, "Okay, that's realistic".
I know it may seem I'm being a bit contrary here, but despite all the theory, studies and blind tests, etc., I think to a great degree it's just a matter of personal preference. And to the newbie that Remlab addresses in the OP, I agree. Don't get caught up in the quest for wide dispersion if you can't/haven't/won't treat the walls of your room.
In another thread, the idea of using Tom Danley's speakers in a home environment was dismissed, but I think if someone tried that, they'd be quite pleased, and their friends very impressed. I've used three-way horns in a small, live room and they provided some of the most realistic reproduction I'd ever heard (given that at point I hadn't actually been to the Symphony or started working in studios, so my idea of "live" was either standing on-stage with the band, or listening to a PA).
The horns provided two things. One, not apropos to this thread but still important, was a massive reduction in distortion, both from the drivers and from the amplifiers. The other was directivity, and that made sitting across the room still a near field experience without the crowded feeling you often get from pulling your chair up close.
I get that some people expect to hear the room, as that is their experience. In my case, it's not. I don't hear the room standing next to the instrument or at the recording or FOH console (usually). I think what's needed for realism is SPLs, and lacking that, we each look for substitutes depending on the nature of our hearing. For some people flat response makes things more realistic, others will sacrifice that for impact. But what produces realism depends on one's experience, and the 'taste' of one's ears. Do you like salty food? That's likely because you have more sweet and sour than salt receptors on your tongue.
For the "average" person, i.e., not an audiophile listening critically, when an instrument or singer isn't as loud as they're supposed to be (which we can judge from cues in the recording), we tend to look for cues in the environment that explain why, the most likely culprit being distance. If there's enough reverb in the room to make the performer sound far enough away to explain the lower level, then one's brain relaxes and says, "Okay, that's realistic".
I know it may seem I'm being a bit contrary here, but despite all the theory, studies and blind tests, etc., I think to a great degree it's just a matter of personal preference. And to the newbie that Remlab addresses in the OP, I agree. Don't get caught up in the quest for wide dispersion if you can't/haven't/won't treat the walls of your room.
Horns are great, as long as they cover most if not all of the FR.
That will give you even power response.
Of course the problem with horns is that the acoustic centers are far apart, unless its a unity horn or a coaxial. But never the less, they have to be huge.
Its this half and half business that I'm opposed too.
That will give you even power response.
Of course the problem with horns is that the acoustic centers are far apart, unless its a unity horn or a coaxial. But never the less, they have to be huge.
Its this half and half business that I'm opposed too.
I suppose if we get the horns low frequency cut off down to where room gain takes over, or as close as possible, that's good enough because the low frequencies that are out of the horns passband will couple to the room gain and not present themselves as reflections.
Just thinking out loud here
Just thinking out loud here
I agree. What horns do right, especially point source horns like Danley's, far exceed what they do wrong in a smaller, untreated environment like a livingroom.. The other statement about my OP also hit the nail on the head. It's not just sidewalls you bring into the picture with wide dispersion, Its lampshades, chairs, tiles, carpets, tables, armoire's, fishtanks, dogs, cats, etc..Myself, I like chocolate.
In another thread, the idea of using Tom Danley's speakers in a home environment was dismissed, but I think if someone tried that, they'd be quite pleased, and their friends very impressed. I've used three-way horns in a small, live room and they provided some of the most realistic reproduction I'd ever heard (given that at point I hadn't actually been to the Symphony or started working in studios, so my idea of "live" was either standing on-stage with the band, or listening to a PA).
The horns provided two things. One, not apropos to this thread but still important, was a massive reduction in distortion, both from the drivers and from the amplifiers. The other was directivity, and that made sitting across the room still a near field experience without the crowded feeling you often get from pulling your chair up close.
I get that some people expect to hear the room, as that is their experience. In my case, it's not. I don't hear the room standing next to the instrument or at the recording or FOH console (usually). I think what's needed for realism is SPLs, and lacking that, we each look for substitutes depending on the nature of our hearing. For some people flat response makes things more realistic, others will sacrifice that for impact. But what produces realism depends on one's experience, and the 'taste' of one's ears. Do you like salty food? That's likely because you have more sweet and sour than salt receptors on your tongue.
For the "average" person, i.e., not an audiophile listening critically, when an instrument or singer isn't as loud as they're supposed to be (which we can judge from cues in the recording), we tend to look for cues in the environment that explain why, the most likely culprit being distance. If there's enough reverb in the room to make the performer sound far enough away to explain the lower level, then one's brain relaxes and says, "Okay, that's realistic".
I know it may seem I'm being a bit contrary here, but despite all the theory, studies and blind tests, etc., I think to a great degree it's just a matter of personal preference. And to the newbie that Remlab addresses in the OP, I agree. Don't get caught up in the quest for wide dispersion if you can't/haven't/won't treat the walls of your room.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.