I'm not sure what it should be, the title is probably wrong. I'm kind of promoting "main trade-off categories" and prioritizing them early on as a tool to get success in loudspeaker projects so I'm happy with any interesting replies that would keep the thread alive. There are million specific trade-offs we could share and discuss but sometimes the discussion is not very productive and might lead to moderation. We will see how it goes, kind of having hopes staring the thread wasn't stupid and naive act but actually something helpful
Any better ideas for the subject line?
Last edited:
They are two entirely different things. One is not superior to the other. Each has its own characteristics and its own reality.
To try to claim that one is superior to the other is to force a false choice.
That's not the point. If you don't find stereo satisfying despite its limitations, then you have some work to do.
I suppose I would start with a persons personal preference trade offs. This usually comes down to - in no particular order
Room placement (not size). "these must be up against the wall or in a bookshelf" etc...
Maximum desired size
WAF
Particular biases they will not budge from ("All vented designs are crap. Metal drivers suck" etc...)
Maximum desired SPL
Practical F3/F6 bass extension needed
Desire to focus on 2 channel stereo or some other multi-channel presentation
Maximum total budget (clarifying whether this includes cabinetry or just drivers, crossover)
With the above, you can call out any 2 or more items in conflict.
With a revised list, then a list of parameters can be drawn to select kit or driver combinations.
The primary tradeoffs for me in order are:
1. Cost
2. Construction complexity matching skill of builder
3. Size
4. Desired bass frequency extension
5. Max SPL (and proposed amplifier power)
6. Minimum impedance
Room placement (not size). "these must be up against the wall or in a bookshelf" etc...
Maximum desired size
WAF
Particular biases they will not budge from ("All vented designs are crap. Metal drivers suck" etc...)
Maximum desired SPL
Practical F3/F6 bass extension needed
Desire to focus on 2 channel stereo or some other multi-channel presentation
Maximum total budget (clarifying whether this includes cabinetry or just drivers, crossover)
With the above, you can call out any 2 or more items in conflict.
With a revised list, then a list of parameters can be drawn to select kit or driver combinations.
The primary tradeoffs for me in order are:
1. Cost
2. Construction complexity matching skill of builder
3. Size
4. Desired bass frequency extension
5. Max SPL (and proposed amplifier power)
6. Minimum impedance
I suppose one might argue that selecting stereo when choosing your system is a trade-off, but I really can't be bothered with 5.1, 7.1 or whatever. 99.5% of our music collection and listening is recorded in stereo, played in stereo and we're very happy with that.
The only "5.1" version of a stereo album I've thought worthwhile was the 50th Anniversary release of 'Electric Ladyland', which seemed to fulfil Jimi's concept of 'having stereo which goes up, down and around' the listener, as he said at the time..
The album, mainly produced by Jimi, was of course recorded and mixed in stereo, although he was unhappy with the mastering and cutting.
The 5.1 mix is the recording engineer's interpretation of what Jimi wanted, although of course he is Eddie Kramer, who worked on the original.
However, I'm still very happy with the stereo mix.
Geoff
The only "5.1" version of a stereo album I've thought worthwhile was the 50th Anniversary release of 'Electric Ladyland', which seemed to fulfil Jimi's concept of 'having stereo which goes up, down and around' the listener, as he said at the time..
The album, mainly produced by Jimi, was of course recorded and mixed in stereo, although he was unhappy with the mastering and cutting.
The 5.1 mix is the recording engineer's interpretation of what Jimi wanted, although of course he is Eddie Kramer, who worked on the original.
However, I'm still very happy with the stereo mix.
Geoff
The correct answer is live performance is superior to two channel stereo.
That is a red herring statement. For symphonic works, and other "Live Recordings" the recording process tries to capture the essence of the live performance. But the recording engineers don't simply put microphones out among the audience... they position them in places to best capture the event. Often the mics are placed in positions where no human ear could ever be. The signal is then mixed and mastered, both of which involve adjusting the levels among the several channels, and also adjusting the frequency balance. The goal is to produce a recording which recreates the feel and essence of the concert when played back through two channel stereo. The playback process creates the illusion that the original event is happening again.
If you were to sit through a concert in the "good seats" (first row mezzanine) of a concert that was being recorded, and then listened to the finished recording on a very good high-fidelity system, it would not sound the same. There are aspects of the hall ambience that cannot be fully captured or reproduced. However, there are other aspects that would sound better. Some instruments would be more clear and detailed, and the overall balance among all the performers would probably be better. And this is certainly true if you did not have a good seat.
So, with this kind of art, the live performance IS THE ART. The performers are communicating with the audience at that moment. The recording is an attempt to capture it. If done well, a good system can create the illusin of being at a live concert.
Other kinds of music are created in a studio. There is no audience present. The recording itself IS THE ART. The artist is communicating to us only through the recording. So in this case it does not make any sense to compare the recording to the live event because there was no live event. The two channel recording is the performance, it is the art.
The vast majority of music recorded over the last 100 years has been recorded in two channel. I wont argue that two channel is better than 5.1 or 7.1 or atmos or whatever the next technology is. But I will say that Miles Davis "Kind of Blue" was recorded in two channel. So was Kiri Te Kanawa singing "O Mio Babbino Caro", and Zeppelin's "Misty Mountain Hop" and "Kashmir". 99% of the best 1% of all music is 2 channel stereo... So I just don't have any need for more than 2 channels...
j.
Last edited:
Back to the original question: I have been part of large complicated design projects, and I am sure that shapes how I think about the design process. I will share how I would approach the numerous tradeoffs facing a person designing a one-off speaker for their personal use.
The first steps in designing something is not to focus on tradeoffs, but to recognize and understand the requirements. These are constraints on the design. For example:
1) Maximum size. It has to fit in the room.
2) Maximum cost. It cannot be a successful project if we run out of money half way through.
3) Aesthetic requirements (if any)… Does it have to be beautiful? Does it have to be merely not-ugly? Or can it look like a jumbled prototype of wires and drivers?
4) The radiation pattern, or dispersion/directivity design philosophy. This is where we decide if we want a line array, a dipole radiation pattern, a conventional direct radiator system, or a controlled directivity (i.e narrow directivity) system. Most people have a preference going in.
There are other constraints / requirements, and each person and situation will have unique requirements.
Let’s assume I have room for space for a pair of speakers no more than 50 inches high, 20 inches wide, and 24 inches deep (max size). I am willing to spend $3000 on this project (max cost). It is going to be located in the main entertainment area of the house, next to a piano and near some art, so it needs be very attractive (aesthetics). Based on all my prior experiences with other speaker systems, I have decided I prefer wide dispersion direct radiator systems (radiation dispersion directivity). In addition, I have another requirement: I really want this speaker to have a beryllium tweeter.
So now I can look at tradeoffs. With my budget and size limit, a 3 way will offer much higher potential sound quality than a 2 way, so that is an easy decision. But what about a tradeoff between a large 3-way versus a small 3 way plus sub. There are tradeoffs on baffle width. A wide baffle versus a narrow baffle. Two small woofers or one large woofer. Woofer on the front baffle (making it wider) versus woofer on the side panel (allowing baffle to be narrow). There are tradeoffs on cabinet complexity versus the need to learn new skill or invest in new tools. Is it a single cabinet or should the bass driver be isolated in its own cabinet? What about an active system versus passive system? After getting a preliminary answer on these questions, I would start to look at various driver options. I fully expect that I will have to go back and revisit earlier tradeoff decisions all along the way. Nonetheless, it is crucial to begin nailing down some aspects of the design, otherwise I will spin my wheels endlessly and make no progress.
If I had decided I wanted a Multi-Entry Horn (MEH), or a floor to ceiling line array, I am sure I would be facing completely different tradeoffs. In fact, every speaker project will some common tradeoffs and also have unique tradeoffs.
j.
The first steps in designing something is not to focus on tradeoffs, but to recognize and understand the requirements. These are constraints on the design. For example:
1) Maximum size. It has to fit in the room.
2) Maximum cost. It cannot be a successful project if we run out of money half way through.
3) Aesthetic requirements (if any)… Does it have to be beautiful? Does it have to be merely not-ugly? Or can it look like a jumbled prototype of wires and drivers?
4) The radiation pattern, or dispersion/directivity design philosophy. This is where we decide if we want a line array, a dipole radiation pattern, a conventional direct radiator system, or a controlled directivity (i.e narrow directivity) system. Most people have a preference going in.
There are other constraints / requirements, and each person and situation will have unique requirements.
Let’s assume I have room for space for a pair of speakers no more than 50 inches high, 20 inches wide, and 24 inches deep (max size). I am willing to spend $3000 on this project (max cost). It is going to be located in the main entertainment area of the house, next to a piano and near some art, so it needs be very attractive (aesthetics). Based on all my prior experiences with other speaker systems, I have decided I prefer wide dispersion direct radiator systems (radiation dispersion directivity). In addition, I have another requirement: I really want this speaker to have a beryllium tweeter.
So now I can look at tradeoffs. With my budget and size limit, a 3 way will offer much higher potential sound quality than a 2 way, so that is an easy decision. But what about a tradeoff between a large 3-way versus a small 3 way plus sub. There are tradeoffs on baffle width. A wide baffle versus a narrow baffle. Two small woofers or one large woofer. Woofer on the front baffle (making it wider) versus woofer on the side panel (allowing baffle to be narrow). There are tradeoffs on cabinet complexity versus the need to learn new skill or invest in new tools. Is it a single cabinet or should the bass driver be isolated in its own cabinet? What about an active system versus passive system? After getting a preliminary answer on these questions, I would start to look at various driver options. I fully expect that I will have to go back and revisit earlier tradeoff decisions all along the way. Nonetheless, it is crucial to begin nailing down some aspects of the design, otherwise I will spin my wheels endlessly and make no progress.
If I had decided I wanted a Multi-Entry Horn (MEH), or a floor to ceiling line array, I am sure I would be facing completely different tradeoffs. In fact, every speaker project will some common tradeoffs and also have unique tradeoffs.
j.
Last edited:
Dave and hifijim have pretty well shot this down.
It’s like trying to compare apples and oranges and ask which tastes better. They are both fruit, they both taste good, and yet they both taste different.
There is no ‘correct answer’ for fruit just as there is no ‘correct answer” for music despite your claim to one.
Another good rule (more general) is similar: Good, fast, cheap, pick any two. Applies to cars, computers and sundry other things
For bicycles, it's strong, light, cheap.
Glad you asked Since can't have single sweet spot seat I need constant directivity for wide sweetspot. I cannot put too much into room acoustics so need narrow directivity. I think beamsteering is something I cannot pull off so waveguide it is.
Since I've got time, space and some cash another basic I'm gonna want is full bandwidth 20-20kHz, maybe ~30-15kHz is fine. Low distortion would be another one, I like it loud. A multi-way speaker with rather large woofer(s) it must be. Large woofers require sizable cabinets and it is fine. Multi-way requires crossovers though.
Problem with crossovers is the idea that the audio is separated into bands in the electronic domain and then wish them to compile back perfectly in acoustic domain, from different objects emitting the sound, before hitting the ear. Combining in acoustic domain becomes automatic if the sources manage to be within 1/4WL at crossover frequency, which would require coaxial speaker or multiple entry horn. For fun I'm going to take the multiple entry horn route, coaxial would be much easier but I think MEH could beat in the audio quality and potentially be lower distortion. Add in multiple subs to reach the bottom octave and average the in room response. Very high level thinking this time
Since can't have single sweet spot seat I need constant directivity for wide sweetspot. I cannot put too much into room acoustics so need narrow directivity. I think beamsteering is something I cannot pull off so waveguide it is. Since I've got time, space and some cash another basic I'm gonna want is full bandwidth 20-20kHz, maybe ~30-15kHz is fine. Low distortion would be another one, I like it loud. A multi-way speaker with rather large woofer(s) it must be. Large woofers require sizable cabinets and it is fine. Multi-way requires crossovers though.
Problem with crossovers is the idea that the audio is separated into bands in the electronic domain and then wish them to compile back perfectly in acoustic domain, from different objects emitting the sound, before hitting the ear. Combining in acoustic domain becomes automatic if the sources manage to be within 1/4WL at crossover frequency, which would require coaxial speaker or multiple entry horn. For fun I'm going to take the multiple entry horn route, coaxial would be much easier but I think MEH could beat in the audio quality and potentially be lower distortion. Add in multiple subs to reach the bottom octave and average the in room response. Very high level thinking this time
Last edited:
Well, tmuikku, thank you very much for making exactly the point that I and others have been trying to make. That it is not all about making tradeoffs.
In fact, it is about starting at the top with the room, seating position, types of music, loudness desired, and other considerations to arrive at the best solution for your needs.
And while cost is always a parameter it does not necessarily have to compromise performance.
In other words, you don’t necessarily have to make a lot of tradeoffs. It is entirely possible to get exactly what you want without compromising anything.
In fact, it is about starting at the top with the room, seating position, types of music, loudness desired, and other considerations to arrive at the best solution for your needs.
And while cost is always a parameter it does not necessarily have to compromise performance.
In other words, you don’t necessarily have to make a lot of tradeoffs. It is entirely possible to get exactly what you want without compromising anything.
OTOH audio started with a certain idea
I can agree that the idea of "realistic sound reproduction" is disputable.
But I would like to ask is there any alternative idea? If yes, then what is it?
And one more question. We know what is entertaining in live music. I don't mean just going out, concerts etc. but also listening to singing or instruments playing at home.
So what is entertaining about audio? If it is different kind of entertaiment.
Last edited:
that's a trade-off, and a matter of preferences
You can't have both pinpoint imaging and spaciousness, regardless of price paid in money.
The price for more of one is less of the other. Can't have more and less of IACC at the same time.
Toole writes about it, being a trade-off and a matter of preferences, citing results of research by many authors.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.