I just got through reading this entire thread from beginning to end and all I can say so far is Wow....
I won't agree with anyone to stay out of the argument, though there are many good points here and many as in all threads that are purely opinion or trying to state fact from someone else's research. I want to say a few things from a designers side that may take a slightly different tack here. One problem that I see quit often is that people seem to lump speakers into categories and assume that all speakers in that design are working the same. It is far from the truth. First to put and Omni and a di-pole in the same class is just not true. Perhaps in general but in practice they have very different radiation patterns, so I don't see how they can be equated. For horn devices again they are all in one class but each of us who designs them truly has different ideas on what is important and how to get there. Some will swear by a conic expansion as giving the best directivity control while others of us do not like that in the least for frequency response reasons. Another area of difference in waveguide design is the coverage angles that we are after. I can never understand the round horns that have the same dispersion vertically as horizontally as I sure don't want as much sound bouncing off the ceiling and floor as the side walls or just for horizontal dispersion in general. I would be more in the Geedes camp but still have differences of opinion on design. Not only that but mixing of very different dispersion angle devices just makes not sense with waveguides that some people combine. Now in the direct radiator realm there is the direct on axis response and the off axis response. While some speakers may have a very nice on axis response the off axis response is all over the place. The thought about having a smooth off axis polar response that is changing smoothly with frequency is just not very well spoken of and this can give extreme variation to using two supposedly similar monitor cabinets in the same room. One can be very controlled in off axis response while what looks similar has very poor polar response. So it is very difficult to answer the question of what speaker sounds better in a given room without knowing the particular speaker and its implementation. The same speaker in a similar looking box with a different implementation of a crossover will have very different sound to it and polar response will shift with those changes. This subject is so subjective that no one answer is ever going to be correct. Every omni speaker will have different vertical dispersion and how do you lump them all into a group? Now you can go on and I will keep reading what you can argue about here next, it is a no win situation. Each room and speaker interaction is going to be unique and that is more of what we should talk of, how do you optimize each situation instead of which is the better.
I won't agree with anyone to stay out of the argument, though there are many good points here and many as in all threads that are purely opinion or trying to state fact from someone else's research. I want to say a few things from a designers side that may take a slightly different tack here. One problem that I see quit often is that people seem to lump speakers into categories and assume that all speakers in that design are working the same. It is far from the truth. First to put and Omni and a di-pole in the same class is just not true. Perhaps in general but in practice they have very different radiation patterns, so I don't see how they can be equated. For horn devices again they are all in one class but each of us who designs them truly has different ideas on what is important and how to get there. Some will swear by a conic expansion as giving the best directivity control while others of us do not like that in the least for frequency response reasons. Another area of difference in waveguide design is the coverage angles that we are after. I can never understand the round horns that have the same dispersion vertically as horizontally as I sure don't want as much sound bouncing off the ceiling and floor as the side walls or just for horizontal dispersion in general. I would be more in the Geedes camp but still have differences of opinion on design. Not only that but mixing of very different dispersion angle devices just makes not sense with waveguides that some people combine. Now in the direct radiator realm there is the direct on axis response and the off axis response. While some speakers may have a very nice on axis response the off axis response is all over the place. The thought about having a smooth off axis polar response that is changing smoothly with frequency is just not very well spoken of and this can give extreme variation to using two supposedly similar monitor cabinets in the same room. One can be very controlled in off axis response while what looks similar has very poor polar response. So it is very difficult to answer the question of what speaker sounds better in a given room without knowing the particular speaker and its implementation. The same speaker in a similar looking box with a different implementation of a crossover will have very different sound to it and polar response will shift with those changes. This subject is so subjective that no one answer is ever going to be correct. Every omni speaker will have different vertical dispersion and how do you lump them all into a group? Now you can go on and I will keep reading what you can argue about here next, it is a no win situation. Each room and speaker interaction is going to be unique and that is more of what we should talk of, how do you optimize each situation instead of which is the better.
Last edited:
Quite right.
...how do you optimize each situation instead of which is the better.
Being able to optimize would require to completely understand how reflections are perceived. This just hasn't happened yet!
Markus,
Agreed. But for a beginner in all this perhaps we could give generalized thinking on how to improve speaker placement by type and room mods that are not drastic but can help make a room sound better. Like not placing a speaker in the corner unless it is a corner horn, or putting the tweeter at listening level, things like that. Keep it simple so it isn't just a theoretical exercise here.
Agreed. But for a beginner in all this perhaps we could give generalized thinking on how to improve speaker placement by type and room mods that are not drastic but can help make a room sound better. Like not placing a speaker in the corner unless it is a corner horn, or putting the tweeter at listening level, things like that. Keep it simple so it isn't just a theoretical exercise here.
...or right on the floor level like here: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/136887-snell-type-1s.html
why not?
Graaf,
I am going to assume that they did that to keep from having a floor bounce, but I haven't heard that so I can't comment on how that would sound as far as directionality is concerned. But I did once build a set of speakers into one of my cars and everything was on the rear deck, no front speakers at all, took a little getting use to at first but then it was great. Coherent car stereo, all bounced of the window glass from one plane,
I am going to assume that they did that to keep from having a floor bounce, but I haven't heard that so I can't comment on how that would sound as far as directionality is concerned. But I did once build a set of speakers into one of my cars and everything was on the rear deck, no front speakers at all, took a little getting use to at first but then it was great. Coherent car stereo, all bounced of the window glass from one plane,
how does it sound? there are opinions in the linked thread and also a review I refer to here: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/121385-loudspeakers-room-system-165.html#post3143953
anyway - quite counterintuitively the sound is NOT like coming from the floor
generally - is floor reflection good or bad? from theoretical point of view it is bad and most psychoacoustic research - like done in Archimedes project for example - confirms this
so as far as directionality is concerned it generally seems to be a good ideea to avoid floor reflection
but then conventional box of electrodynamic speakers is useless - You need something completely different like a true line or planar source or much thinking outside of the box - I mean Snell Type 1 or at least Gradient 1.3/1.5 or even my humble flooder thing discussed here: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/121385-loudspeakers-room-system.html
Last edited:
To be honest, my heart's not really in this, but I think you deserve some sort of reply.
And you're right, Toole "has my number". But I do try to make it clear that my listening preferences are not those of the average audiophile. Most of the time.
I won't go into a long rant about AES white papers being closer to advertising blurbs than true reports on scientific research, but here's the thing to ponder. Would Toole's work be held in such high regard if it was titled, "How to Make Loudspeakers Sound Good in Hi-Fi Showrooms"?
Things may be a bit different where you live, but yes, people have stopped going to unampified concerts. Even the major orchestras are on the verge of bankruptcy.
It's a pity this forum software takes quotes out of context. What you said was:
The difference between "misguided" and "wrong" is a finer shade of quibbling than I care to indulge in. Nevertheless, Remlab can defend himself, I'm sure. This is a bit of a "boy's club" here, and it's not my intention to dampen the spirited discussion.
Okay, you got me. Yes, I agree, that was snarky. Sorry.
And you're right, Toole "has my number". But I do try to make it clear that my listening preferences are not those of the average audiophile. Most of the time.
I won't go into a long rant about AES white papers being closer to advertising blurbs than true reports on scientific research, but here's the thing to ponder. Would Toole's work be held in such high regard if it was titled, "How to Make Loudspeakers Sound Good in Hi-Fi Showrooms"?
Keriwena,
I like that very last statement. Not necessarily towards Toole, but in general. Go into most audiophile type showrooms and they want to play music that they have specifically chosen to show a set of speakers. Also the levels that they will playback music are very low, like we never would turn up the volume, we are just supposed to enjoy the excellent sound at hospital levels and see how detailed they are. Probably try and sell you a set of $1000 speaker cables and interconnects to go with them also. Of course the public has no idea what a speaker should sound like or have their own choice in music. Can't stand most of the sale people in those places, very arrogant to say the least.. Now I won't say this is all places, but the general rule.
I like that very last statement. Not necessarily towards Toole, but in general. Go into most audiophile type showrooms and they want to play music that they have specifically chosen to show a set of speakers. Also the levels that they will playback music are very low, like we never would turn up the volume, we are just supposed to enjoy the excellent sound at hospital levels and see how detailed they are. Probably try and sell you a set of $1000 speaker cables and interconnects to go with them also. Of course the public has no idea what a speaker should sound like or have their own choice in music. Can't stand most of the sale people in those places, very arrogant to say the least.. Now I won't say this is all places, but the general rule.
Graff
In all fairness I would like to know how you would approach Floyd Toole's own living room with a two channel setup. Please? I would like to know..
so it is perfect in the sense of imperfect?
This is a good summary of traditional stereo triangle.
Why do we bother, one might ask
- Elias
Elias,
So what is the solution then? Multichannel sound has its own problems and then we can multiply all the phenomenon by as many channels as we have. Mono is flat, Stereo is artificial and multichannel can be just as unrealistic given the hand of an overzealous recording engineer. I guess we should just go back and only listen to live music with no amplification with acoustic instruments then in a perfect acoustical space.... No simple answers are there....
So what is the solution then? Multichannel sound has its own problems and then we can multiply all the phenomenon by as many channels as we have. Mono is flat, Stereo is artificial and multichannel can be just as unrealistic given the hand of an overzealous recording engineer. I guess we should just go back and only listen to live music with no amplification with acoustic instruments then in a perfect acoustical space.... No simple answers are there....
Quite a lot of why this why that this works that doesn't etc etc.
A biggest why (to me) is, why not? -- Why don't you just try?
I bet you have some spare drivers lying around. Just hook them up, try placing them here or there (with some senses), have a listen (or measure, if you like). How hard is that? And I guarantee you, that is much more rewarding than typing.
It warms me when I read (in the Toole's site):
I'm not good at those hair-splitting theories. All I can do is try. Trying new things which have chance to bring me good sounds. Along the way, I trust my own sense (of hearing) more than the (audiophile's) "common sense". I'm quite familiar with both the real things and the audiophiles' tricks. More and more I head to the former.
If you are not a very first time speaker builder, then there must be some spare parts for experiments. Cost nothing but a little time and effort, rewarding is a lot. OSD, linear matrix 3-ch, flooder ... are all better than the traditional 2-ch stereo.
I'm not saying 2-ch stereo is dead, instead, we can grow something good on that platform. So, why not?
-------
To Graaf,
Thanks alot for your compliments, again. It means a lot to me. I appreciate that.
CLS
A biggest why (to me) is, why not? -- Why don't you just try?
I bet you have some spare drivers lying around. Just hook them up, try placing them here or there (with some senses), have a listen (or measure, if you like). How hard is that? And I guarantee you, that is much more rewarding than typing.
It warms me when I read (in the Toole's site):
I'm not good at those hair-splitting theories. All I can do is try. Trying new things which have chance to bring me good sounds. Along the way, I trust my own sense (of hearing) more than the (audiophile's) "common sense". I'm quite familiar with both the real things and the audiophiles' tricks. More and more I head to the former.
If you are not a very first time speaker builder, then there must be some spare parts for experiments. Cost nothing but a little time and effort, rewarding is a lot. OSD, linear matrix 3-ch, flooder ... are all better than the traditional 2-ch stereo.
I'm not saying 2-ch stereo is dead, instead, we can grow something good on that platform. So, why not?
-------
To Graaf,
Thanks alot for your compliments, again. It means a lot to me. I appreciate that.
CLS
In my own experience with tuning studios and peoples listening rooms, I have never encountered a situation were some good, broadband absorption around the ceiling and side wall first reflection points has NOT resulted in an improvement to the coherence and specificity of the stereo image. Both a stronger, more focused center image and a more even spread of sound from side to side. Certain styles of production are more obvious to tell the difference, but it is always there. Any recording that captured a good amount of the ambiance of the recording venue, be it a concert hall, a smaller club or even the room microphones placed a distance for a drum kit in a large tracking room always seem to benefit. All of the spacial cues needed to form a solid image and a nice sense of space are there and any additional early, strong reflections just confuse the situation. These cues are very low in level and easy to swamp out with other sounds. It's like layering one room on top of the other.
Just as important has been some diffusion around the back of the room, especially if square or rectangular. The trick is to get the right balance. Too much absorption and your room sounds dead, not enough and you 'hear' your room. Might be good for intelligibility of someone speaking in there, but very bad for fine detail retrieval of recorded sound. If this is not achievable for whatever reason, then the next best choice is getting yourself or the speakers in a more nearfield position, where you get more direct sound.
This all works very well if one is going for the 'you are transported there' theory of recording and listening. Otherwise, leave your room 'live' and make the recordings 'dry' and you've got 'they are here'. This is a great oversimplification, but holds up pretty well in practice if you want to actually hear what is on the recording and not embellish it. Others favor flooders or open baffle because it DOES add some sense of spaciousness, unfortunately at the expense of those small spacial cues that are present in all recordings, but especially important in good, minimalist audiophile recordings like those from Chesky Records and Water Lily Acoustics.
Greg
Just as important has been some diffusion around the back of the room, especially if square or rectangular. The trick is to get the right balance. Too much absorption and your room sounds dead, not enough and you 'hear' your room. Might be good for intelligibility of someone speaking in there, but very bad for fine detail retrieval of recorded sound. If this is not achievable for whatever reason, then the next best choice is getting yourself or the speakers in a more nearfield position, where you get more direct sound.
This all works very well if one is going for the 'you are transported there' theory of recording and listening. Otherwise, leave your room 'live' and make the recordings 'dry' and you've got 'they are here'. This is a great oversimplification, but holds up pretty well in practice if you want to actually hear what is on the recording and not embellish it. Others favor flooders or open baffle because it DOES add some sense of spaciousness, unfortunately at the expense of those small spacial cues that are present in all recordings, but especially important in good, minimalist audiophile recordings like those from Chesky Records and Water Lily Acoustics.
Greg
Greg,
It sounds like you are recreating the recording studios control room. Makes sense that it would sound closer to the sound that the engineer was going for in the room with the final mix. Do you still leave the front of the room live? Only thing you would be missing is the soffit mounting of the mains monitors.
It sounds like you are recreating the recording studios control room. Makes sense that it would sound closer to the sound that the engineer was going for in the room with the final mix. Do you still leave the front of the room live? Only thing you would be missing is the soffit mounting of the mains monitors.
In a sense, yes. It works for us pros, so why not keep the same general thing going here. Kind of a form of standardization if you will. Follow the lead of the post production industry. All major movies are mixed in spaces that very closely resemble a movie theater. Makes logical sense, no? The best reproduced sound I've ever heard usually comes from mastering studios, not audiophile stores or peoples homes. They combine professional engineers knowledge and audiophile equipment in a well treated environment. These are the guys with the last quality control checks in the production process, so they better hear exactly what's on the recording.
I find that many audiophiles have this notion that all recording studios are very dead, almost anechoic in nature. While there are plenty of facilities that overdo the absorption or even worse, stick crappy *** acoustic eggcrate foam all over the place, the real pro facilities generally follow the 'live end dead end' model with generally good of success. The skew towards only high frequency absorption might be a contributing factor to why so many modern recordings are overly bright in tonal balance.
As Scott would say, "It's easy enough to try yourself." Some may like the effect and some may not, but it certainly gets you closer to what the engineer intended. Unfortunately, with the slow death of professional level studios and the migration to home and 'project' studios, the situation is getting worse because people are working in not ideal environments and without the traditional years of mentoring to learn tricks and best practices for more senior engineers.
Greg
I forgot to add:
The soffit mounted monitors are generally NOT the reference for top sound quality these days, but rather there to listen loud and impress the clients. Very few soffit systems are really that good despite their large price tags. Sound like any other loudspeakers we talk about on here?
Thank goodness, engineers are learning that they should not just rely on crap Yamaha NS10s for mixing. Instead, people are using better nearfield monitors for a lot of work and referencing something cheap like an NS10 to see how it sounds on the average system, if there is such a thing...It could not happen soon enough, but I digress or I'll be here all night getting pissed off at how stupid engineers can be too.
Greg
The soffit mounted monitors are generally NOT the reference for top sound quality these days, but rather there to listen loud and impress the clients. Very few soffit systems are really that good despite their large price tags. Sound like any other loudspeakers we talk about on here?
Thank goodness, engineers are learning that they should not just rely on crap Yamaha NS10s for mixing. Instead, people are using better nearfield monitors for a lot of work and referencing something cheap like an NS10 to see how it sounds on the average system, if there is such a thing...It could not happen soon enough, but I digress or I'll be here all night getting pissed off at how stupid engineers can be too.
Greg
Greg,
I follow you and understand what you are saying. At least some of the best studios are still around and many professional bands will still use them and keep them around. I spent many years in them when I was younger and still know some of the studios here in LA. I think that if people ever start to listen to other than MP3 sound we can get back to better recordings. So many think that a cheap desk and a funky room and some egg cartons on the wall and you have a studio. Just the cost of a bunch of nice mics is worth more than most of the home studios. Nothing to say about the difference of a nice SSL desk or anything in that range.
I follow you and understand what you are saying. At least some of the best studios are still around and many professional bands will still use them and keep them around. I spent many years in them when I was younger and still know some of the studios here in LA. I think that if people ever start to listen to other than MP3 sound we can get back to better recordings. So many think that a cheap desk and a funky room and some egg cartons on the wall and you have a studio. Just the cost of a bunch of nice mics is worth more than most of the home studios. Nothing to say about the difference of a nice SSL desk or anything in that range.
Problems in typical living rooms -
the absolute SPL of some reflections is much higher than in normal performance spaces.
VERs don't exist in the performance space
The spectra of living room reflections are different from those of performance space
much less audible decorrelated sound than performance space
paucity of modes compared to performance space
................................
I don't think just two speakers and the stereo triangle can deal with these problems in an entirely satisfactory fashion.
Gotta have some room treatment. Either in the room or at the speakers
Need subs to increase the number of LF modes
the absolute SPL of some reflections is much higher than in normal performance spaces.
VERs don't exist in the performance space
The spectra of living room reflections are different from those of performance space
much less audible decorrelated sound than performance space
paucity of modes compared to performance space
................................
I don't think just two speakers and the stereo triangle can deal with these problems in an entirely satisfactory fashion.
Gotta have some room treatment. Either in the room or at the speakers
Need subs to increase the number of LF modes
+1
And practical work helps tremendously in enabling you to rate and weigh things accordingly and put them in perspective. There is no point in reaching out for the ideal if it cannot be built or if the improvements are so small that it is just not worth the hassle.
Bashing about stereo and omnis is less justified than one could think.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.