@ Dr. Geddes
Since you already have given the answer implicitly
- as self adjusting is neither the case nor intended -
both chanels will decorrelate smoothly and gradually as
you move outside of the symmetry.
A very nice effect: You do not even notice it. There is
a smooth transition between "definite phantom sources"
which is much like sitting in the sweetspot of a conventional
speaker and an "easy listening area" farther away from
symmetry, which keeps tonality and spaciousness but
does not fix the phantom sources as sharply.
You can walk around and choose your place to listen, but
there is no "line to cross" where the image breaks down or
the reproduction gets coloured.
If you want the most definite phantom source localization,
you will intuitively choose a seat near symmetry, but that
does not depend on some decimeters.
All in all: Very 'realistic', hard to demand for more from two
speakers in a room i would say. And with extraordinary depth
of image 🙂 a stunning near/far localization of instruments on
good recordings.
Since you already have given the answer implicitly
- as self adjusting is neither the case nor intended -
both chanels will decorrelate smoothly and gradually as
you move outside of the symmetry.
A very nice effect: You do not even notice it. There is
a smooth transition between "definite phantom sources"
which is much like sitting in the sweetspot of a conventional
speaker and an "easy listening area" farther away from
symmetry, which keeps tonality and spaciousness but
does not fix the phantom sources as sharply.
You can walk around and choose your place to listen, but
there is no "line to cross" where the image breaks down or
the reproduction gets coloured.
If you want the most definite phantom source localization,
you will intuitively choose a seat near symmetry, but that
does not depend on some decimeters.
All in all: Very 'realistic', hard to demand for more from two
speakers in a room i would say. And with extraordinary depth
of image 🙂 a stunning near/far localization of instruments on
good recordings.
Last edited:
OK, those are all subjective opinions, nothing objective, so I guess we are finished with this part of the conversation.
As you like, i urged nobody to discuss panel form
bending waves. I think we were starting from how
to deal with early reflections and whether it is helpful
to have diffusivity in the reverberant soundfield of
the listening room.
bending waves. I think we were starting from how
to deal with early reflections and whether it is helpful
to have diffusivity in the reverberant soundfield of
the listening room.
I think the priority is to have a small number of decorrelated reflections over a large number of diffuse reflections.
We were and that was an interesting objective discussion, but then all of a sudden it became subjectively based and those kinds of discussions don't interest me. Once it gets subjective anyone can say anything "I like this - Oh, I like that" and then it becomes not so interesting.
I'm usually one to demand scientific basis for any opinions regarding audio circuit or speaker designs. There are all kinds of rumors, ******** claims, people trying to sell you their crap, etc. Having said that, I tend to agree with DBMandrake that after all is said and done, in the real world, it's your ears that you are trying to please, not test equipment.
I do the best I know how to do with all the theory and test equipment, but I don't pretend that covers everything; that I then know it all. There's way too many variables in the reproduction process, and they are different for each recording. Acoustics are very complex, as is the way the brain reads what it hears. Gedlee makes some good points, but seems to have a pretty tightly closed mind to subjective perspectives. When someone is substantially rude, it makes me wonder how enjoyable their system really is. Program source material is invariably corrupted in a variety of ways, and what I want to do is make it pleasant to listen to in spite of that, and in spite of my listening room acoustics. It challenges my technical abilities, and my creative abilities, in both an objective and subjective realm.
I do the best I know how to do with all the theory and test equipment, but I don't pretend that covers everything; that I then know it all. There's way too many variables in the reproduction process, and they are different for each recording. Acoustics are very complex, as is the way the brain reads what it hears. Gedlee makes some good points, but seems to have a pretty tightly closed mind to subjective perspectives. When someone is substantially rude, it makes me wonder how enjoyable their system really is. Program source material is invariably corrupted in a variety of ways, and what I want to do is make it pleasant to listen to in spite of that, and in spite of my listening room acoustics. It challenges my technical abilities, and my creative abilities, in both an objective and subjective realm.
In the interest of objective comparison and evaluation I would prefer to see un-smoothed response plots and more test data.... warts and all.
How about it Earl?🙂
again, that was pretty funny
My mind is not closed, but it is certainly true that my mind is made up on the issue. That did not come by chance but through decades of seeing subjective evaluations come to the wrong conclusions as well as the huge uncertainty and lack of stability of virtually all subjective evaluations. After enough time you simply learn what not to trust. I don't trust my ears and I know that they are a lot better than most. When you have done as much subjective testing as I have then you can make comments like that.
My purpose is to understand how subjective experiences arise from the physical impingements of sound.*
Otherwise, it sure sounds like you agree with me completely.
*Why does the term "subjective" sound like a curse-word when certain people speak it? We are all groping to explain how desired perceptions are created from the modest sound-tools available to recording engineers. As a basic case and in reference to this thread, how the perception of "flat" can be created in our music rooms.
What do you mean by "unsmoothed"? even FFT data is smoothed by the nature of its bins. That data is 1/10 octave smoothed which is far far higher resolution than I generally see anywhere else. It makes no sense to look at data presented in equal bandwidth presentation because that is simply unrealistic. Equal percentage bandwidth is how we hear and thats how you should look at data. So you will have to be more specific about what it is that you want to see. "warts" that aren't there? "more data"? What more do you need and why?
Well I cannot say that I disagree with you, because, as I have said many times, I have trouble understanding your position.
"Subjective" per se is not the evil, it's the way that it is performed and used in discussions that is all wrong. Any one persons sighted listening evaluations are completely meaningless. They are what the listener wants them to be and if you do not understand this then you do not understand the nature of the problem.
The goal of correlating the "true" subjective impression to measurements is a honorable one - one that I have pursued with great vigilance for a long time now. But the technique of taking any losing discussion into the realm of the subjective is one that I have seen all too often and I just don't do this anymore.
"It sounds good to me." will always end a discussion that I am involved in. There is no rebuttle so why pose one?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.