You've stripped the context from my quote, and were expressly rude to boot.
The post was about the determinate factor of a design's presentation (..mostly with regard to the IMP which is currently under discussion).
Prior posts from others "jump" to reflections creating an improved presentation. (i.e. The IMP has a "net" polar pattern that likely enhances reflections in a room - ergo: The IMP's superior preference from others in the article is due to its enhanced reflections.)
That's an assumption, and it may be an incorrect assumption. (..it may also be correct of course.)
Added reply:
Most people can listen to their loudspeakers under a variety of conditions (as mentioned in the post), though notably with some effort. Headphone listening doesn't involve the speakers (..unless you are using a Smyth unit), so it's a pointless comparison.
OT. Earl, I saw a car going north on I-85 Friday that had the license plate "Geddes". Got up beside and the driver didn't look a thing like you. 🙂
Hi Chris - this is absolutely not the case. The time intensity tradeoff of source localization is very stable from listener to listener and quite well defined (See Blauert - I used these curves just this morning).
This is quite correct in the majority of cases but it is NOT a given. It is entirely possible to do a design without the slightest reference to any personal subjective evaluation, just pure physics. This is what I attempt to do, although its hard to keep ones personal opinions entirely out of a discussion even if that is done in regards to the design.
In fact, many designs are done this way, even by DIY'ers - by way of software modeling. (..I'd almost argue that most competent "passive" multi-way DIY designs are done this way - with no subjective evaluation altering the design largely because of parts cost, time, and effort in making any changes.)
Still, I don't care how well it models and then measures, if you do a subjective listen (and you know you will) and don't like it at all - then it's not something you are going to promote.
Of course technically - prior history with subjective evaluations will always partially influence a new design.
I'm simply asserting that in regard to the definitive effects of loudspeaker radiation patterns and directivity on audio quality in domestic sized rooms, the Jury is still out. Ask ten different experts such as yourself (and I do consider you to be an expert in this field), and you will get ten different answers, in some cases biased towards commercial interests.
To further quote from "Effects of loudspeaker directivity on perceived sound quality - a review of existing studies:"
This makes it difficult for ordinary folks like me to decide where we should invest our hard earned money. If I didn't care, I would head over to Best Buy and quit DIY altogether.
It doesn't happened to me and if it happens to others then there is something that they are not doing right.
All of my designs are purely objective - nothing has ever been done based on anything personally subjective. Once you get used to what measures best it easily becomes what you prefer.
Ethan Wiener and I have had some discussions on this exact topic of late. He has encouraged me to write up my position because he is whole heartedly in support of it. It differs from Toole in a few key areas, but I can explain why that is based on what the goal is/assumptions are. It is true that certain situations taken as a given will yield certain results - like the room design. However if these givens are allowed to be variables, the situation can change quite a bit. Hence it does depend on ones assumptions. I tend to make fewer than others - I don't take the room as a given, I design rooms and speakers together specifically to optimize the results. I claim that this leads to dramatic improvement's in playback that are noted by everyone who experience's it. Its not something that everyone can do, but ts becoming more common.
Dave Clark - who did this test between these two speakers - commented that "people seem to be able to get used to just about anything in a loudspeaker - and they seem to like what they are used to". To which I commented "Then why wouldn't everyone just get used to what measured best? Nothing else is justifiable."
A. None of this is an "investment".
B. If there was really some definitive answer, there wouldn't be so many commercial products, or even a forum like this.
C. *Value* isn't always what this hobby is about, particularly as you move down the price-point. The emphasis is more often on performance both objective and subjective.
At $400 dollars a pair, you'll likely be beating your head in trying to improve upon the active Beheringers. Remember, that's loudspeaker AND amplification.
You can do something a bit different (like the IMP), or perhaps improve upon extending bandwidth, but even then the amplification is going to push that value limit.
But hey, it's usually this way with most products. 😱 Heck, we have rather drawn-out threads here on the choice of just *wiring* in a loudspeaker. 😱 😀
But you might be working with a particular design constraint that, unbeknownst to you, lessens or near-on "removes" a condition that might have otherwise caused you to not like it. 😉
The best example I can think of is with regard to the perception of depth reproduction with respect to imaging (..not sound-stage effects at lower freq.s..). I've heard entirely excellent designs (objectively speaking), that were "pancake flat" in their portrayal of imaging. 😱
Maybe you have gotten "lucky" in that regard? 😉
(..I do remember reading on one reviewer on your website specifically wanted a bit more depth - so maybe it's "mostly lucky", or perhaps it had nothing to do with loudspeakers, but rather something else - up to and including the listener.)
(..this also happens throughout the Hi-Fi industry, including excellent objective designs with "God D@mn" prices.)
Whatever that means . . . oh . . . do you meant the room it's in ? ? ?
Because an omni (or pseudo omni like the IMP) is likely to sound quite different freefield vs. a small room.
It's nice to have that option, and far better than the situation most manufacturers face, where they have no control over where their speakers end up.
I suspect that for DIY in general (certainly in my case) the situation is different . . . we know where our speakers are going to go and what will be played on them, and the challenge is to choose and build the speaker best suited to that location and music. If I were doing a HT installation or had different taste in music I'd build different speakers from what I have . . .
Yea, I'm just a novice who misses all the important things.🙄
Yea, its all just "luck". That's what everybody says.
I'm not making those suggestions. Nor was there any intended "inference" to do so.
But the topic I've broached (depth), at least from an objective measurement-side of things, to the best of my knowledge has never been answered. And we *were* talking about design without subjective evaluation.
Certainly from measurements you can design the horizontal dispersion character off-axis to have an upper-mid lower treble "dip" and achieve enhanced depth while listening off-axis (or nearly off-axis), but that's essentially a flaw in design that sacrifices several aspects of the design to provide depth. (..or just going ahead and putting in a shelving filter with a design that otherwise has a flat response and properly designed off-axis response. Again, a flawed compromise.)
Honestly, if you know - please tell. 🙂
(..right now I'm wondering if Speaker Dave could answer this one under these conditions, because without intending any disrespect (to either of you) - I don't think he could. ..and I don't think he is a novice either.)
Last edited:
Reflections vs. Direct Sound.
In the IMP, what is the principal reason for it's preference when compared to the Behringer and the Orion?
If we go straight to "Reflections" as an answer for this, that might be incorrect.
The free-field will sound different, particularly at the "start" (..or without having a personal memory profile for it), but so would the Orion or the Bheringer or any other speaker.
If the preference persists, to what degree?
If that preference is substantially identical (..or greater than) - well then you should start having a better idea that reflections are not the determinate factor in that preference.
Alternatively, if preference declines then you start having some confirmation that reflections are the determinate factor.
Clear as mud? 😱
Yes, to what degree does using to rooms reflections correlate to this "better presentation"?
This is what confuses me about this study....
1st place - uses room reflections.
2nd place - gradually directional (although a wide window) from low to high FR (generic presentation) in that its like many other speakers.
3rd place - uses room reflections.
1 of these speakers are very different from the other 2. Why is it in the middle?
If the answer to this puzzle is whether or not reflections are good, shouldn't the berry be 1st or last?
What Scott is saying is....listen to these darn speakers outside. If the preference for the IMP still stands then its not because of the use of room reflections.
Last edited:
What else might be the reason it performed well? You have to express a hypothesis that can be tested.
From the 1989 AES convention paper by Eickmeier:
"The [stereo] theories are based only on the direct sound radiated from a pair
or a line of speakers. They are 'blind' to the effects of loudspeaker radiation
pattern, positioning, and room acoustics. We started with the system definition
as a field type system, reproduced in a real acoustic space by loudspeakers, but
as far as the explanation of how it works goes, the playback room might as well
not exist, and nowhere do we find reflected sound incorporated as part of stereo
theory."
Concerning the test conditions of the 'Siegfried Challenge', I'm not sure instantaneous ABX switching will deliver conclusive results. When it comes to spatial hearing our perception is known to 'lock into' an auditory scene (backward masking, Fransen effect, etc.).
My personal observation is, when directly switching from a very spacious configuration to a less spacious one, there is not a significant change in perception. With a small pause the difference between the two configurations becomes readily apparent.
very good remark, that's exactly what happens when you switch the Watsons on/off.