phase_accurate said:
I think with the improvement in class D amps and reduced price. A decent affordable 2+2+2 system might not be that far away. I wish we had some of those MDG 2+2+2 recordings here.🙁 It would be cool to be like sitting in the "The Pawn Shop" and listen to "Jazz" or hear people clap around you in a concert hall.🙂
Well, but we don't need perfect speakers to be able to identify the flaws in stereo configuration, do we? At least I don't. Maybe I should specify what I mean about stereo configuration: it is the placement of two speakers in front of you in (about) 60 degree angle. I don't make any assumptions of the reproduction chain components other than they don't change the electrically measurable signal (of course they do a bit but that's not the point).
The key point is to do something about this 60 degree placement of the speakers and the crosstalk from the speakers. It is easy to do a test that will prove there is another as simple method as 60 degree stereo to render the information from two channel recording. More importantly this method is more psychoacoustically satisfying than stereo. Try http://www.ambiophonics.org The simplest form of this is http://www.ambiophonics.org/Figure4.htm where the speakers are placed in (about) 10 degree angle in front and an absorptive barrier is placed to cancel the speaker crosstalk.
You should read all the chapters to really understand what's going on there, but to make a long story short crosstalk cancellation enables using ILD cues and pinna cues are satisfied because of frontal location of speakers. Neither which is possible with stereo.
- Elias
Mr. Dabringhaus himslef (the D in MDG) was doing the demo.
During the demo of some live jazz recording I was tempted to tell one "virtual member of the audience" next to me to shut up. 😎
Regards
Charles
It seems to me that 99% of the "surround" systems out there are terrible, and terribly overdone; however, I have a simple 4-channel "circle surround" system that is better than stereo no matter what is playing. Subtlety is the key. The music is still mainly produced by the main speakers with slight augmentation with the surround speakers playing ambient information already in the recording. I know 2-channel die harders would scream at this, but I would dare them to listen to the two side by side. When they do they always prefer the surround.
Back to the Wilson's, I would think that most people on this forum would know that spending $30,000 and $40,000 loudspeakers is crazy. It was said in an ealier post something like "since music cannot be reproduced perfectly one might as well choose the system they like". For one thing, I think that a system can get VERY CLOSE to reproducing live music, and it will be that type of system that will offer the most long term satisfaction. For those who want "the best sounding speaker", Wilson might seem like a good idea, but if I am "hearing a speaker" then there is something wrong, the loudspeaker should essentially have no "sound", and speakers far far cheaper than Wilson can do a very good job of that.
Back to the Wilson's, I would think that most people on this forum would know that spending $30,000 and $40,000 loudspeakers is crazy. It was said in an ealier post something like "since music cannot be reproduced perfectly one might as well choose the system they like". For one thing, I think that a system can get VERY CLOSE to reproducing live music, and it will be that type of system that will offer the most long term satisfaction. For those who want "the best sounding speaker", Wilson might seem like a good idea, but if I am "hearing a speaker" then there is something wrong, the loudspeaker should essentially have no "sound", and speakers far far cheaper than Wilson can do a very good job of that.
kevyjo said:
Actually the best music surround systems I heard and have ( definitely not 4 or 5.1) are working just the opposite. Lots of surround channels creating a full sphere believable ambience and 2 or 4 main speakers just sharpen the frontal stage.
Majority of the energy is coming from the surround speakers (as in a real concert hall) but they are diffuse and uncorrelated enough so you can not localize them even if the main channels are not that loud.
I guess it's what one would consider "the best". I've heard lots of surround systems that used lots of speakers to create a very "diffuse" effect, but it does not sound real to me, the soundstage in front of me collapses. My system creates a well defined soundstage AS WELL AS a "full sphere of ambience" around me, which is the closest to how I would describe listening to live music.
What (if any) effects are you using kevyjo? - if you're not using effects, are you using any reverse polarities or the old ++ connection tricks? or are you running LL/RR with the rears attenuated, & if so; roughly to what degree?
Cheers - Jezz
A simple test that can be done is run a music segment through s system, record it back into a computer from three points, the preamp, amp and the speaker. Then do a simple difference comparision of each against the original signal.Elias said:
Elias said:
I think there has been lots of discussion about amisonics. I think it is quite easy to create something that might be psychoacoustically satisfying. But it is diffifult to create something that accurate on preserving the context of the original performance. Having looked at lots of amibisionics information, I do not see any information that technically can preserve the original sound field representation. In the other hand, there are many systems that actually determine characteristics from certain hall and do processing to create ambient effect of those halls which is a more reasonable approach. I do recall a figure that has lots of speakers, but the way they are connected totally ignors the effected of varied impedance on amp performance unless the speakers have been specially designed for that kind of connection. The process between the encoding and decoding does create some sort of amience illusion, but cannot properly recreate clear imaging.
Elias said:
I'll beleive it when I see the math equations. Just point me to that portion. From the encoding and decoding circuits that I found, it really does not do what you explained.
kevyjo,
i think that might be overly optimistic. i think it's possible to design a very natural (or neutral) sounding speaker (and no, i wouldn't accuse wilson of having done that) - but when you look at room modes, reverberation time and stored energy in the playback chain - not less the variability of studios/halls, micing practices, etc - i think reproducing a live/sudio event correctly in a home is as impractical as inviting over your area orchestra (who wouldn't sound good in the room anyway even if they could fit).
of course, that's just as elusive as finding a live venue/band that could actually qualify as a measuring stick. i love live music, and have been on the stage (as well as the radio) many times, but i rarely hear a live event that has anywhere near the coherence of a decent recording. i know that's heresy on this forum, but it's true. (i did hear a jazz trio last weekend in a hotel lobby with really good acoustics -- man, i could taste the cymbals. absolutely amzing.)
anyway, i think i'm splitting hairs. i know what you meant. i agree with you that we should not just pick whatever b/c all speakers fall short - we should push ourselves and the market to make better speakers. but at the same time - and this was my point - there really is no measuring stick. there are just well designed systems that give (more or less) enjoyable experiences. i'd actually take a good recording in a good room over a lot of live events - of course, most of the people i like are dead. and no, price shouldn't be an issue - sellers are entitled to charge whatever they want - let the market decide their fate.
i'd very much appreciate it if you could describe your surround setup in more detail. i saw the description of a Hafler (?) on the ESP site, and i've been considering doing the passive version. is that what you're doing? any tips for the adventerous?
i think that might be overly optimistic. i think it's possible to design a very natural (or neutral) sounding speaker (and no, i wouldn't accuse wilson of having done that) - but when you look at room modes, reverberation time and stored energy in the playback chain - not less the variability of studios/halls, micing practices, etc - i think reproducing a live/sudio event correctly in a home is as impractical as inviting over your area orchestra (who wouldn't sound good in the room anyway even if they could fit).
of course, that's just as elusive as finding a live venue/band that could actually qualify as a measuring stick. i love live music, and have been on the stage (as well as the radio) many times, but i rarely hear a live event that has anywhere near the coherence of a decent recording. i know that's heresy on this forum, but it's true. (i did hear a jazz trio last weekend in a hotel lobby with really good acoustics -- man, i could taste the cymbals. absolutely amzing.)
anyway, i think i'm splitting hairs. i know what you meant. i agree with you that we should not just pick whatever b/c all speakers fall short - we should push ourselves and the market to make better speakers. but at the same time - and this was my point - there really is no measuring stick. there are just well designed systems that give (more or less) enjoyable experiences. i'd actually take a good recording in a good room over a lot of live events - of course, most of the people i like are dead. and no, price shouldn't be an issue - sellers are entitled to charge whatever they want - let the market decide their fate.
i'd very much appreciate it if you could describe your surround setup in more detail. i saw the description of a Hafler (?) on the ESP site, and i've been considering doing the passive version. is that what you're doing? any tips for the adventerous?
Hmmm, interest in surround. I am using a "circle surround" decoder from Smart Devices. It is a passive surround matrix somewhat similar to a Hafler chip, but makes several improvements on it. There was a "white paper" on circle surround technology, im not sure if it's still around, but it allows for a descreet right and left surround channel out of a stereo recording without time delay or "DSP". It also works well for movies since "pro-logic II" is based on circle surround technology.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Q
B&W's are basically..unlistenable. All of them.
As for constructive comments on B&W, I'd say: "I've never heard a more perfectly articulated disparate group of drivers in my life."
Of course, anything with 24db crossovers is basically unlistenable. They all sound like a bunch of separate drivers. No intergration at all.
I do complain about a lack of speed in B&W, yes 🙂. Zero speed. Awful. May as well be listening to the new Linn speakers. Or a set of Wilsons, heaven forbid. 🙂 I have been kicked out of Wilson rooms at shows, yes.
It should be clear as to why I generally stay out of the loudspeaker forum, as a policy...why I'm commenting here today, ..I dunno. Causing myself grief, I guess.
But, I do recognise that they (all mentioned) do satisfy some, and more power to them for doing so. Good luck and good business, etc.
Just like life, I like to say it's all "Otto In The Airport".. meaning....a scene from the film "A fish Called Wanda."
In this particular scene..John Clease is holding a gun on Kevin Kline, DEMANDING..taht he put 'both hands up'. Otto refuses, and tells Jon he 'can only have one'. Otto then smirks at John..and starts playing with him, in that he puts one hand up..then the other..but only when he has the other hand down! Never both at the same time. Never.
Life's like that. You can't have both.
In this case, you can design a passive crossover with teriffic Phase response..and speed out the a$$ like you've never heard in your life. but.. you will NEVER get linearity in the response curve at the same time. Mutually exclusive.
All you can do is reach a personal compromise that works for you, and might work for the buyer (if it is a commerical product).
Which is why, beyond basic measuring devices to keep one 'in the ballpark'..software, and measurement devices for louspeaker design..are a complete and total waste of time. The ear is the final arbiter.
Use it. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of useless and unimportant measurements. You'll never make a good sounding loudspeaker by measuring it...and putting too much creedence in the measurement of linearity. It will be an atrocious sounding speaker. Like a 2 month old fish..it will be stinky and flat.
Makes good press type for magazines, but it won't be worth owning.
Bratislav said:
B&W's are basically..unlistenable. All of them.
As for constructive comments on B&W, I'd say: "I've never heard a more perfectly articulated disparate group of drivers in my life."
Of course, anything with 24db crossovers is basically unlistenable. They all sound like a bunch of separate drivers. No intergration at all.
I do complain about a lack of speed in B&W, yes 🙂. Zero speed. Awful. May as well be listening to the new Linn speakers. Or a set of Wilsons, heaven forbid. 🙂 I have been kicked out of Wilson rooms at shows, yes.
It should be clear as to why I generally stay out of the loudspeaker forum, as a policy...why I'm commenting here today, ..I dunno. Causing myself grief, I guess.
But, I do recognise that they (all mentioned) do satisfy some, and more power to them for doing so. Good luck and good business, etc.
Just like life, I like to say it's all "Otto In The Airport".. meaning....a scene from the film "A fish Called Wanda."
In this particular scene..John Clease is holding a gun on Kevin Kline, DEMANDING..taht he put 'both hands up'. Otto refuses, and tells Jon he 'can only have one'. Otto then smirks at John..and starts playing with him, in that he puts one hand up..then the other..but only when he has the other hand down! Never both at the same time. Never.
Life's like that. You can't have both.
In this case, you can design a passive crossover with teriffic Phase response..and speed out the a$$ like you've never heard in your life. but.. you will NEVER get linearity in the response curve at the same time. Mutually exclusive.
All you can do is reach a personal compromise that works for you, and might work for the buyer (if it is a commerical product).
Which is why, beyond basic measuring devices to keep one 'in the ballpark'..software, and measurement devices for louspeaker design..are a complete and total waste of time. The ear is the final arbiter.
Use it. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of useless and unimportant measurements. You'll never make a good sounding loudspeaker by measuring it...and putting too much creedence in the measurement of linearity. It will be an atrocious sounding speaker. Like a 2 month old fish..it will be stinky and flat.
Makes good press type for magazines, but it won't be worth owning.
It is indeed true that it is very difficult to build a PASSIVE speaker with good phase response and flat amplitude response. With active solutions this is easier to achieve.
But phase_accurate multiway speakers come at a cost: You will have less SPL capability and/or higher nonlinear distortion for a given driver combination when used with phase-optimised analog active crossovers.
Regards
Charles
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Q
Hummm, Vandersteen,Theil and Dunlavy( when they were in buissness) have all made models that achieved both goals.
KBK said:
Hummm, Vandersteen,Theil and Dunlavy( when they were in buissness) have all made models that achieved both goals.
nope. all dead as doornails.. unlistenable. 🙂
Not their fault, I guess. They worked with the tools they either had or have.
I realize that is a tough argument to swallow when you've read what I just wrote. It may not mean much to you in terms of trying to understand where I'm coming from, but I'm speaking from the a position (of analysis and within the business) that is different than most.
I realize that people are all in different phases and stages of their 'audio journey'. And that your point of analysis and understanding (where you launch your logical deductive faculties from, when looking at something) may not be in the same spot or on the same page. For whatever that's worth.
Not their fault, I guess. They worked with the tools they either had or have.
I realize that is a tough argument to swallow when you've read what I just wrote. It may not mean much to you in terms of trying to understand where I'm coming from, but I'm speaking from the a position (of analysis and within the business) that is different than most.
I realize that people are all in different phases and stages of their 'audio journey'. And that your point of analysis and understanding (where you launch your logical deductive faculties from, when looking at something) may not be in the same spot or on the same page. For whatever that's worth.
Well Alrighty then.
So anything with phase accurate 1st order XO'S are junk.
any speaker with steep slope XO's are unlistenable.😕
That leaves us with few options,like single full range cone drivers or full range ESL( ie QUAD).
So anything with phase accurate 1st order XO'S are junk.
any speaker with steep slope XO's are unlistenable.😕
That leaves us with few options,like single full range cone drivers or full range ESL( ie QUAD).
Hi,
I admit that I don´t have much experience with WA. One reason is, that I lost any greater interest because there´s nothing new or spectacular about those apart from their price tag.
Drivers: reasonable good parts, but techologically speaking not too hot boiling water. I actually like the Seas drivers better than the Scans, but anyway. I prefer to use good drivers in my designs, because they measure and sound good and not because they are hyped stuff.
Crossover: designing a crossover is a very easy thing for an engineer who knows what he´s doing. Nothing sacred, nothing secret. I expect the parts to be of low-tolerance and good quality, but whats the advantage of 0.3% against 1% other than marketing reasons?
Cabinets: There are many who used natural or artificial stone or concrete materials with very good results. But does the material alone make a good cabinet? As B&W shows there are other aspects to a good design and as everybody slightly skilled in this field will assure, a box-design with sharp edges is not the best You can do.
Finish: Oh well, they claim the laquer to be soo valuable and fine, but having cracks in the surface of an 3 year old Cub -that was treated by its owner like an raw egg- is not the state of art I expect of such a costly product.
Even though I disagree with Richard Hardesty about his opinion about large-sized mid rangers --which deviates from common enigeering knowlege anyhow-- he´s right on most points. The reaction of the Wilson man on the other side is imo typical for those whose products success rely rather on marketing than on good design. I know of a former employee of Bose, who was dismissed shortly after he wrote an internal(!!) dossier in which he draw the conclusion that in comparison B&W could be named the ´HiFi-product´ whereas Bose could be named the ´Marketing-product´ My personal experience with Bose was, that when I applied for a job at Bose the guys told me they thought I´d be "wrecked" for a job at Bose´s since I am a technical engineer who has build audio electronics as well as ´typical´ loudspeakers 😀
As someone said before: If You can´t get them with facts, get them with BS. 😀
A little funny but true story for pleasure:
In 2004 I attended the High-End in Munic. KR-audio had asked me to build a small speaker for their show in a little 18m² room with terrible acoustics. The acoustics of the rooms and cabins on that fair were simply a horror for every manufacturer. That ahead.
All the big names visited us -since it was one of the very rare chances to see and hear a living legend in action (the Kronzilla)-
Among our visitors was a well reputed journalist who had a listening test just for his own. After two pieces of music he asked if he could listen to something he brought with him, which I agreed to, since playing the same 4 pieces again and again becomes very boring over the days. 😉
Suddenly he became fidgety. "Do You hear that?....Do you hear that?", he asked me. I didn´t knew what he meant , so I asked him. He answered:"....The handclapping!"
I agreed I heard handclapping and asked him what was so special about that sound? He answered:"Well it sounds like handclapping!" I must have looked very puzzled, so he added: "I´ve been upstairs where all the big names (BW, Focal, Wilson, etc.) are and with those this clapping rather sounds like throwing a steak into a frying pan!"
Of course was I pleased that he enjoyed our show, but hardly believed him with that opinion. So I took me some time later and went upstairs and what should I say? He was right. 😉
jauu
Calvin
I admit that I don´t have much experience with WA. One reason is, that I lost any greater interest because there´s nothing new or spectacular about those apart from their price tag.
Drivers: reasonable good parts, but techologically speaking not too hot boiling water. I actually like the Seas drivers better than the Scans, but anyway. I prefer to use good drivers in my designs, because they measure and sound good and not because they are hyped stuff.
Crossover: designing a crossover is a very easy thing for an engineer who knows what he´s doing. Nothing sacred, nothing secret. I expect the parts to be of low-tolerance and good quality, but whats the advantage of 0.3% against 1% other than marketing reasons?
Cabinets: There are many who used natural or artificial stone or concrete materials with very good results. But does the material alone make a good cabinet? As B&W shows there are other aspects to a good design and as everybody slightly skilled in this field will assure, a box-design with sharp edges is not the best You can do.
Finish: Oh well, they claim the laquer to be soo valuable and fine, but having cracks in the surface of an 3 year old Cub -that was treated by its owner like an raw egg- is not the state of art I expect of such a costly product.
Even though I disagree with Richard Hardesty about his opinion about large-sized mid rangers --which deviates from common enigeering knowlege anyhow-- he´s right on most points. The reaction of the Wilson man on the other side is imo typical for those whose products success rely rather on marketing than on good design. I know of a former employee of Bose, who was dismissed shortly after he wrote an internal(!!) dossier in which he draw the conclusion that in comparison B&W could be named the ´HiFi-product´ whereas Bose could be named the ´Marketing-product´ My personal experience with Bose was, that when I applied for a job at Bose the guys told me they thought I´d be "wrecked" for a job at Bose´s since I am a technical engineer who has build audio electronics as well as ´typical´ loudspeakers 😀
As someone said before: If You can´t get them with facts, get them with BS. 😀
A little funny but true story for pleasure:
In 2004 I attended the High-End in Munic. KR-audio had asked me to build a small speaker for their show in a little 18m² room with terrible acoustics. The acoustics of the rooms and cabins on that fair were simply a horror for every manufacturer. That ahead.
All the big names visited us -since it was one of the very rare chances to see and hear a living legend in action (the Kronzilla)-
Among our visitors was a well reputed journalist who had a listening test just for his own. After two pieces of music he asked if he could listen to something he brought with him, which I agreed to, since playing the same 4 pieces again and again becomes very boring over the days. 😉
Suddenly he became fidgety. "Do You hear that?....Do you hear that?", he asked me. I didn´t knew what he meant , so I asked him. He answered:"....The handclapping!"
I agreed I heard handclapping and asked him what was so special about that sound? He answered:"Well it sounds like handclapping!" I must have looked very puzzled, so he added: "I´ve been upstairs where all the big names (BW, Focal, Wilson, etc.) are and with those this clapping rather sounds like throwing a steak into a frying pan!"
Of course was I pleased that he enjoyed our show, but hardly believed him with that opinion. So I took me some time later and went upstairs and what should I say? He was right. 😉
jauu
Calvin
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Q
KBK, please don't ever post in the loudspeaker forum again at least until you've learnt to build speaker with 4th order XO's.
And for godsake, stop reminding us that your 'in the business'. You seem so desperate to get that point across that it makes me question it. Nobody else who's in 'the business' on here goes out their way to point that out, at least not if they're successful.
KBK said:
KBK, please don't ever post in the loudspeaker forum again at least until you've learnt to build speaker with 4th order XO's.
And for godsake, stop reminding us that your 'in the business'. You seem so desperate to get that point across that it makes me question it. Nobody else who's in 'the business' on here goes out their way to point that out, at least not if they're successful.
KBK,
Which brands, if any, would pass the test of being listenable?? This is a serious question, not to critisize you.
Which brands, if any, would pass the test of being listenable?? This is a serious question, not to critisize you.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Q
I hope that sentiment doesn't include everyone. I'd never attampt to design a passive 4th order filter -- generally a waste of time IMHO -- those kinds of filters suck the life out of a speaker and tend to drive amps nuts.
dave
ShinOBIWAN said:
I hope that sentiment doesn't include everyone. I'd never attampt to design a passive 4th order filter -- generally a waste of time IMHO -- those kinds of filters suck the life out of a speaker and tend to drive amps nuts.
dave
Hi Dave,
Does that include adding a 2nd order high pass to a sealed speakers natural 12dB/oct roll off ? (creating an 'acoustic' 4th order)
Cheers,
Rob.
Does that include adding a 2nd order high pass to a sealed speakers natural 12dB/oct roll off ? (creating an 'acoustic' 4th order)
Cheers,
Rob.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.