It will not use the same tweeters. The tweeters in CBT36 have a sensitivity of 75 dB. The ones in the XL version have a sensitivity of 91 dB.
Attachments
Tom,
Having read your contribution, it seems that you have a good experience what specific recording techniques can produce. This is why I feel that earphones will have greater potential in achieving the realism we desire. My own experience in recording with the mic located just about where earbuds have their diaphragm located allows capture of reflections from the outer ear, I have not yet tested how much ear shape will effect this experience during playback though.
Having read your contribution, it seems that you have a good experience what specific recording techniques can produce. This is why I feel that earphones will have greater potential in achieving the realism we desire. My own experience in recording with the mic located just about where earbuds have their diaphragm located allows capture of reflections from the outer ear, I have not yet tested how much ear shape will effect this experience during playback though.
We are talking about homes and smaller rooms.
A speaker that disperses everywhere in the horizontal will not by any means yield anything close to accuracy and a good image in an environment like that. High gain reflections have a detrimental effect on clarity, localization, tonality, etc.
You would have to treat almost all surfaces in ear height in order to get a precise image.
Have you noticed when the MBL get good rapports from shows? It's when they are set up in large audiotoriums or halls with great distances to surfaces.
But MBL are after all better then Boose. The polar of Boose speakers is laughable. MBL measures pretty flat at one height.
The prices however for MBL is ludicrous. It's plain funny to watch their power amps that look like coffins.
Attachments
Omholt,
You have just pointed at the dichotomy we have hear with the polar opposites of Omni verses directive speakers. There have always been those who have liked the disperse sound field of the 901 speakers, compared to the sound of not even a horn loaded system, but a direct radiator on a flat baffle. Two systems with very different goals. I would rather have the room itself create the reflections and interactions much later in time than a deliberate diffuse approach of an omni and then a secondary time smear when integrated into the room. There is not a clean initial impulse response with the omni, the time and phase response of the recorded image created by the microphone is lost, it makes me think of the sound from outside a room coming through a doorway rather than being in the room with the instruments. The broad dispersion makes any possibility of localization of a specific image in the sound field impractical at best, and much worse than that in reality.
You have just pointed at the dichotomy we have hear with the polar opposites of Omni verses directive speakers. There have always been those who have liked the disperse sound field of the 901 speakers, compared to the sound of not even a horn loaded system, but a direct radiator on a flat baffle. Two systems with very different goals. I would rather have the room itself create the reflections and interactions much later in time than a deliberate diffuse approach of an omni and then a secondary time smear when integrated into the room. There is not a clean initial impulse response with the omni, the time and phase response of the recorded image created by the microphone is lost, it makes me think of the sound from outside a room coming through a doorway rather than being in the room with the instruments. The broad dispersion makes any possibility of localization of a specific image in the sound field impractical at best, and much worse than that in reality.
I agree, that was exactly my point. But, you can get very good sound from a small near field omni speaker far from boudaries in a typical living room. What you loose on SPL you gain in imaging. A near perfect pulsating sphere is great!
Last edited:
not if you use the setup I described, you can easily get 10ms gap in a normal room.
I disagree if good sound here equals accuracy.
Don't forgot that late arrival specular energy are also detrimental. It's not just early reflections. Even high gain arriving reflections at late as 40 ms are audible.
We can't only focus on what's happening for the first 10-15 ms.
Personally I don't wan't anything above -20/-30 dB apart from what is coming from diffusers behind me. A Haas kicker from diffusers is fine though and has some interesting psycoacoustic effects.
and I have to disagree with you.. once you get past about 10ms/-15db things improve in my opinion, but you seem to have a small room so I can understand where you comments come from, I would not put a omni there, for sure..
the setup I described is perfectly capable of accurate monitoring and listening "through the room" if size allows. It is just SPL limited.
What is the level of a reflexion at 40ms delay in a real room may I ask?
That's not what we know from studies. Not as long as we're talking about an accuarate presentation. You have to leave out some of Toole researches for that too. Much of what he has conducted was related to preferences.
It's a bit ironic that he spent so much time on proving the failing on the LEDE concept. His tests bear out what was already well known. That strong lateral reflections can sound better to some test subject listeners. But it's not an accurate presentation, and same with later arriving reflections from other directions. Personally and subjectively I think it will also greatly depend on not only the music material, which Tools agrees to, but also how the room is treated and the disperson pattern of the speakers.
Obviously not very high, but the point is that if it sticks out enough compared to it's surroundings, it becomes audible even at low levels. If it happens will greatly depend on the geometry of the room, furniture, etc.What is the level of a reflexion at 40ms delay in a real room may I ask?
"Some" like in "all of them"
That's what the Harman studies have shown. Most people prefer more spaciousness/realism over accuracy.
sure, but you have to make these number talk for yourself, what you like and what suits your music best. In my experience, dry recording work very well with dry rooms, the more reverb in the recording, the more you can have in the room too. Doesn't meen we use caves you know, just maybe not as extreme a treatment as an RFZ, that's all.
Haven't been here lately too much but was there meanwhile a definition of "accuracy", any consensus ? (this is a serious question).
Do they? It's an interesting question.
A few points to consider.
1. Harman Int. studies were not particular conclusive in this. It varied with music. The only concluded that "it seemed to be a preference for lateral contribution". Look at what Toole writes himself further down.
2. There's a difference here between trained and untrained listeners. Untrained listeners seems to weight spaciousness higher then trained. Are they maybe more easily impressed at first and would possibly change their mind if they listened longer?
3. How much does the room contribute here? Could a highly diffused soundfield from the rear change things? What about the the width of the room?
I believe there are too many variables here to be conclusive. It's intestering to note that most that experiement with acoustic treatment, end up with absorping the sidewall reflections. Of course, speakers and size of room may also be contrubuting factor to that. Most have speakers for instance with a pretty poor power response.
...and we end up with the non-environment concept proposed by Hidley. Using headphones is probably cheaper
I ended up doing the opposite: create a strong side wall reflection by toeing-out speakers. Haas kicker revival
What turned out as a bad idea in control rooms is probably a very good idea at home.