Hello,
Can you explain more, what does this 'compaction' means. Is it something perceived as the image being small in size? Like an orchestra being shrinked?
If 'compact' means small image blur, then it IS improved localisation, no?
- Elias
ScottG said:
Can you explain more, what does this 'compaction' means. Is it something perceived as the image being small in size? Like an orchestra being shrinked?
If 'compact' means small image blur, then it IS improved localisation, no?
- Elias
Hello,
Yes, I think that is the case. Ambiance (hall sound) helps in creating greater realism. Imaging is a part of realism, I think.
- Elias
ScottG said:
Yes, I think that is the case. Ambiance (hall sound) helps in creating greater realism. Imaging is a part of realism, I think.
- Elias
Hello,
Why would this be the case? What makes it hard to make low freq (say 300Hz-1kHz) phantoms? Which theory there is to support your claim.
- Elias
markus76 said:
Why would this be the case? What makes it hard to make low freq (say 300Hz-1kHz) phantoms? Which theory there is to support your claim.
- Elias
poptart said:
not neccesarily
how so?
well, as Moulton observes:
listening room is too small for it's acoustic to overtop the recorded acoustics the latter is to BIG to be covered
with the excpetion of those seriously defective recordings, (allegedly "stereo" and in fact "two channel") with serious deficit of information of recorded space
best!
graaf
FrankWW said:
I find it significant that You have said "both imaging and spaciousness"
this is also my experience
there is no necessary tradeoff between imaging or spaciousness
rather spaciousness is an essential part of realistic imaging
an image must occupy a space!
best regards!
graaf
ScottG said:
I agree
Moulton says the same:
http://www.moultonlabs.com/more/nick_batzdorf_interview
best regards!
graaf
Elias said:
Yes it effectively means to radically "shrink" apparent "image" *volume*. (..rather than a "3D" image (say the perception of an actual piano playing), you get a much smaller point of sound where the piano is located. Usually it isn't actually a smaller "3D" image of a piano (or an apparent "toy piano"), just a point in space where that piano is, or perhaps several points in space where the individual hammered strings of the piano seem to be the loudest.)
However, conceptually it is NOT a "grouping" (..orchestra gets bigger or smaller), rather each individual within that grouping. In the case of an orchestra it doesn't "shrink" the relative size of the orchestra itself but rather each participant within the orchestra. (..and again, "shrink" really isn't the case - more like "points of sound".)
EX. (light instead of sound)..think about the visual difference between a group of people gathered together each holding a torch vs. each holding a candle. (..the torch is the normal volume of light, the candle is the "compacted" version.)
As you become more distant from the group holding torches (because of the relative volume of light), they may be seen less distinctly (as individuals holding torches) - in other words their light output may be perceived as "bleeding together". In contrast a more distant group of individuals each holding a candle may well retain a greater sense of "individuality" and are therefor easier to localize.
This analogy (though simplistic), and its consequence for the perception of sound localization, may well have a basis in a playback system having better localization with compacted images.
It may even have a basis in the *recoding* itself having more easily localized images, (despite my previous assertion), BUT - that doesn't make it any more *real*. (..remember the real "volume" isn't the candle in this instance, but rather the torch.) Furthermore it would simply "highlight" that the recording was poorly recorded/engineered (..with a too-distant perspective).
Also as I've noted before, some listeners may have trained their hearing to be more alert to compacted images.
..............................................
With regard to "*small* image blur", do you mean physically small or LESS "image blur"?
I've never experienced just about everything you're discussing (hearing where every instrument in an orchestra is and how big they are in particular) so I'll bow out and leave it to you guys. Most of the music i listen to isn't recorded live in a real space so it isn't a big issue for me. Like I said, I'm from the "if it makes you happy" school not "the one true way" Interesting topic though.
Markus, thanks for your sounds.
Very much how I feel about - thanks for putting it into clear words.
I felt much pity about loosing "spaciousness" (Räumlichkeit in German) as an word to something as limited as a "terminus technicus" no longer having the meaning of what is associated with in normal life.
Besides any interesting scientific discussion about the current topic, IMO no small part that drives our – at least mine – interest in audio is the excitement of experiencing "paintings of sound" manifesting and going by in the frame of endlessly varying *space* .
An almost meditative / metaphysic state open to be entered by anyone even without having mastered Zen or taking a nip of wine.
Greetings
Michael
ScottG said:
Very much how I feel about - thanks for putting it into clear words.
I felt much pity about loosing "spaciousness" (Räumlichkeit in German) as an word to something as limited as a "terminus technicus" no longer having the meaning of what is associated with in normal life.
Besides any interesting scientific discussion about the current topic, IMO no small part that drives our – at least mine – interest in audio is the excitement of experiencing "paintings of sound" manifesting and going by in the frame of endlessly varying *space* .
An almost meditative / metaphysic state open to be entered by anyone even without having mastered Zen or taking a nip of wine.
Greetings
Michael
Hello all,
Have anyone else done this test yet? Would be interesting to know what do YOU hear with your stereo speakers?
See my observations earlier in this thread.
- Elias
Have anyone else done this test yet? Would be interesting to know what do YOU hear with your stereo speakers?
See my observations earlier in this thread.
- Elias
markus76 said:
Hello,
Actually I've observed situations when room will mask the acoustics of the original venue. Also some very small details can be missing if listening room sound is too much. For example when I compare box speaker with wide dispersion dome tweeter to my dipole line arrays with magnetostat line array tweeter, more directivity allows me to hear more details. Of course this is obvious. But it is allways intriquing to notice in a recording that there is for example very faint bird singing in the background of a cembalo concert recorded in a church with apparently open door or window during the recording session! This I could not hear with wide dispersion box speaker. With earphones I can hear also that. Dipole line array reveals those differences. On the other hand line arrays make the sound to appear very close, at least for dry recordings not containing much of a hall sound. But then for the good recordings nothing beats dipole line arrays 😀
- Elias
graaf said:
Actually I've observed situations when room will mask the acoustics of the original venue. Also some very small details can be missing if listening room sound is too much. For example when I compare box speaker with wide dispersion dome tweeter to my dipole line arrays with magnetostat line array tweeter, more directivity allows me to hear more details. Of course this is obvious. But it is allways intriquing to notice in a recording that there is for example very faint bird singing in the background of a cembalo concert recorded in a church with apparently open door or window during the recording session! This I could not hear with wide dispersion box speaker. With earphones I can hear also that. Dipole line array reveals those differences. On the other hand line arrays make the sound to appear very close, at least for dry recordings not containing much of a hall sound. But then for the good recordings nothing beats dipole line arrays 😀
- Elias
Elias said:
Indeed, the room can/will to an extent mask the acoustic of the original venue, but its mostly as you go lower in freq. (and I'm not "talking" exclusively about issues with modal deviation). Higher freq. detail can also be somewhat obscured or blurred do to excessive combing.
There is however at least one significant problem with your comparison regarding directivity vs. alternate speakers:
The drivers are significantly different *excluding* differences in dispersion. Low mass, low excursion, drivers with little internal loss character virtually always present more detail. (..then compound this with the fact that you don't have any chamber resistance on the drivers if they operate as a free-air dipole, also add in the fact that as a line array you are operating the drivers at a much lower excursion level for an average output.)
As to using headphones.. not only is driver excursion low, but you also have a near absence of external noise AND you have no significant cross-talk - BIG difference.
Hello,
I can hear the same detail with dome tweeter when I put my ear cose to it to make the direct sound to mask the room sound. So mainly it is not a driver tehcnology issue. So my conclusion is directivity is the key issue here, and more directional speaker will deliver more detail from the recording to the listening position.
- Elias
ScottG said:
I can hear the same detail with dome tweeter when I put my ear cose to it to make the direct sound to mask the room sound. So mainly it is not a driver tehcnology issue. So my conclusion is directivity is the key issue here, and more directional speaker will deliver more detail from the recording to the listening position.
- Elias
graaf said:
I said it many times but I will say it again: Stereophony is NOT capable of capturing AND reproducing spaciousness and envelopment of the original soundfield. It can't be re-created with omnidirectional speakers either because with the spaciousness added by your room you get all the imaging destrying cues from your room on top. There IS a trade-off in imaging and spaciousness/envelopment.
Best, Markus
markus76 said:
And I've stated otherwise.😉
Both of our arguments are rather clear. I think at this point you just let others experiment with this themselves. 🙂
I think that I am somewhere in the middle. Recordings attempt to and have some success at creating a sense of spaciousness in the playback, but it is never that effective for me. The room itself can add a far more natural spaciousness effect if done correctly.
We're all speculating to a certain extend. There simply is no real world data from that working recommendations for recording/mixing and speaker/room could derive.
Hopefully Tooles book brings in some new data. I should have it this week.
Best, Markus
Hopefully Tooles book brings in some new data. I should have it this week.
Best, Markus
When it comes to the psychoacoustics stuff this is quite true. There is lots of data to be sure, but it can be very difficult to appliy it to a design issue. The LF directivity issue where this all started is a perfect example. One has to blend what we know from experince, what we know from the research and what is paractical to design and build. Its a crap shoot, a lot of guess work and some technical salvy, but hardly cookbook.
markus76 said:
wow! this is so refreshing reading that You are not so categorical, not so sure about everything, not authoritative at all🙂
what a relief! 😀
what a change!...
...especially after such a statement:
markus76 said:
so perhaps You can just stop speculating about trade-off, about Stereolith and other things You don't know yet criticize...
...and just try it?
why not? 🙂
best regards!
graaf
graaf, last time I'm repeating it: I listened to a lot of speakers under differing reverberant conditions. In every environment with a low D/R ratio - something omnidirectional speakers create by design - imaging was bad if not completely destroyd. That's my experience. But as it turned out in this discussion you're expecting something to hear that is completely different from what I - and all audio engineers I know - (learned to) expect from stereophony. All your expectation is spaciousness and envelopment but stereophony has more to offer (and is technically not capable of capturing and reproducing the necessary cues for spaciousness/envelopment – how to capture a reflection from 90° or from above and seperate it when playing back that signal??). So again: why should I try those Stereolith speakers? They do what a lot of omnidirectional speakers did before. They all vanished somehow. Only Bose doesn't stop selling the 901 (at least that led to the availability of nice stands for my own speakers). Or is there something special in this box nobody else has incorporated before? Then please send me one. I would love to replace 2 big boxes and 3 even bigger subwoofer plus absorber for one speaker that is capable of ... of what?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.