A pair of tall narrow speakers produce good stereo image almost everywhere in the room. There is no such dilemma, for good stereo image sweet spot is not required.
Arrayz rulez.
Arrayz rulez.
Last edited:
Hopefully this is remaining on topic, but last time I bought a new pair of speakers (last century) my choice was narrowed down to 2: ATC SCM20, and the infinity modulus I ended up buying and still am using. Ignoring my youthful belief that small is better I soooo wanted to love the ATCs, but couldn't get on with them because of the imaging. It had a tall image in the middle, but curving to the height of the top of the speakers at either side. They did so much else really well, but always sounded like a pair of speakers. So I bought the ones that 'vanished' and gave me the illusion that I was looking for.
The question is, what causes the 'curved' soundstage?
The question is, what causes the 'curved' soundstage?
Are we referring a HT set up or, a traditional 2 channel stereo?
"Tall" speaker cabinets mainly bring drivers at ear level and shorter speakers on stands (or a short chair LOL) can achiever the same .
Also there is indeed a "sweet spot" spot" for a proper intended stereo image.
https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&biw=1280&bih=920&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=m8E1VKGbMZXesATw8IKgDw&ved=0CB0QsAQ&q=correct%20position%20for%20stereo%20imaging
However, like I said, much of what we hear is reflected sound anyway . 🙂
"Tall" speaker cabinets mainly bring drivers at ear level and shorter speakers on stands (or a short chair LOL) can achiever the same .
Also there is indeed a "sweet spot" spot" for a proper intended stereo image.
https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&biw=1280&bih=920&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=m8E1VKGbMZXesATw8IKgDw&ved=0CB0QsAQ&q=correct%20position%20for%20stereo%20imaging
However, like I said, much of what we hear is reflected sound anyway . 🙂
Last edited:
I believe that's caused by a lobe that launches upwards due to interference effects.
IME, the quality of the system overall dictates how "good" imaging is, and if sufficiently well sorted out then, no matter how hard the recording engineer worked at making a complete mess of it 😀, all the subtle cues are still there, and it will come across as various music making instruments and people in their individual spaces and locations, doing their thing - and it all still sounds, well, "musical" ...
This just happens automatically if the playback system is good enough - it can't not do it, because the ear/brain is clever enough to work out what it all means when it can pick up enough clues ...
This just happens automatically if the playback system is good enough - it can't not do it, because the ear/brain is clever enough to work out what it all means when it can pick up enough clues ...
I'm wholly with Dave on that. It's my sole purpose of good power through conditioning, smart component design, and refinement of what actually makes sound good.
Imaging and other things are entertaining, no doubt, but I have no opposition to non-traditional speakers and/or placement. My biggest opposition is when you lose dynamics and things that make the music fun. Those are more prevalent in traditional stereo presentation. Also in traditional setups you can get a very intimate experience not often offered otherwise, for when you want to sit and relax.
Honestly I'm not sure why audiophiles aren't into kitchen systems.
I'm with you!! Some incredibly absurd comments here lately.
"If it ain't Classic music, it ain't music - YUO!" 🙄
Let me get this straight: An incredibly bad performance, recorded incredibly badly is somehow magically transformed by some "playback system" that is "good enough"? Wow!! That's pretty cool!!
Hmmmm ... very satisfying, IMO, is one good system, in a suitable room, that fills the whole house with convincing sound - no matter where you go, including right up to directly in front of the speakers, the reproduction always does the job properly ...
To evaluate the fidelity of a music playback system, we need the original sound available as a goal toward which to strive.
Measurements alone are not enough. Music which has no original acoustical sound to reference cannot be a basis of evaluation,
no matter how much we might enjoy it. Classical, jazz, and folk can be used, but not most rock, country, etc. I enjoy some 60s rock,
but would never use it as a tool to judge audio equipment, since we cannot know how it should actually sound.
Last edited:
A bunch of totally incompetent musicians, live, will still sound like they're playing real instruments, even though their "performance" is abysmal - that's the "musical" I'm talking about in the first instance.Let me get this straight: An incredibly bad performance, recorded incredibly badly is somehow magically transformed by some "playback system" that is "good enough"? Wow!! That's pretty cool!!
In the second instance, if the playback system doesn't add yet another layer of, conflicting, distortion to that of the recording itself then my personal experience is that the ear/brain can separate the acoustic and events of and within the recording space, from the layer of distortion of the recording process - they don't merge and spoil the "party" of what you're listening to. An analogy is listening to live musicians under a tin roof, and then it starts to rain - the "distortion" of the rain on the roof doesn't stop the listener from picking up the impact of the live music ...
But if the playback then adds further twists of, quite different types of distortion then it all gets too much for the hearing system - we "give up" trying to work it all out; it's just bad sound, and we get listening fatigue, etc.
Last edited:
So music that has no original sound reference is not worthy of reproduction?
The wide variety of conflicting and irrational opinions expressed herein is precisely why ONLY measurements have the ability to yield a globally valid evaluation of a sound reproduction system. When the subject enters into the problem, even a little, then all stability of evaluation goes out the window. You simply cannot make "your opinion" the measure of quality. It is absurd.
But the recording is bad as well. You must have missed that part.
The rest of your response seems to have changed the position.
I said the opposite, I can enjoy a wide range of reproduced music, under many different levels of quality.
It just cannot be used as an evaluation tool for audio equipment.
You wouldn't use a voltmeter that had never been calibrated, would you?
Well, if you can't hear the original acoustical sound, your ears cannot be "calibrated" to judge
the fidelity of sound reproduction using a recording of that sound. Pretty simple.
Last edited:
Yes, where I'm at we don't take things out of context or troll threads because we're adults.
Why was that Trolling? You seemed to suggest that power conditioning was more important than the speakers. Are you able to explain what you actually meant?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.