Why draw lines? Active speakers are incorporating DSP.Perhaps. But it goes beyond "loudspeaker design". It's more like system design.
Whereas the listening room is a factor that should be taken into account anyway.
"Loudspeakers and room as a system" ...there once was a long thread about it
Which is one of the advantages of open baffle. Done correctly it can project a very wide sound stage. Much large than the front wall of your room itself.
Does it magically transport you into a concert hall? No, of course not.
But it does open up the sound stage so that the music doesn't appear to be coming from two small boxes sitting right in front of you. And to me this is particularly important when listening to classical music or opera.
You shouldn't be able to locate any kind of speaker. Interestingly being able to locate them is a sign of poor imaging, which goes to show dipoles can image well and the spaciousness they create doesn't have to compromise that.
I'm not so sure that the spatial aspects of where a recording was made are that much of a factor in how it energizes the room on playback. I think that the actual speakers and their interaction with room are a far larger factor than what's in the recording.
So if you record an orchestra in a concert hall vs in a bowling alley it'll sound basically the same?
Certainly not. So to say the room doesn't interact with the recording of an orchestra is simply not true, and there is no perfect room. So of course if you record an orchestra in a concert hall, it sounds like the orchestra is playing in a concert hall (not a bingo hall) upon playback.
Even if you stuck the orchestra in a giant anechoic chamber, there would be reflective interactions between them all.
I suppose you could stick each musician and instrument into their own separate anechoic chamber. I bet it would sound amazing!
My point about studio recordings remains. The point isn't to remove your room from the equation. The point is for the studio to be removed from the equation - and that should have been done for you long before playback.
Certainly not. So to say the room doesn't interact with the recording of an orchestra is simply not true, and there is no perfect room. So of course if you record an orchestra in a concert hall, it sounds like the orchestra is playing in a concert hall (not a bingo hall) upon playback.
Even if you stuck the orchestra in a giant anechoic chamber, there would be reflective interactions between them all.
I suppose you could stick each musician and instrument into their own separate anechoic chamber. I bet it would sound amazing!
My point about studio recordings remains. The point isn't to remove your room from the equation. The point is for the studio to be removed from the equation - and that should have been done for you long before playback.
Last edited:
I have many classical recordings. Some have been recorded live and some in studios. I frankly could not tell you the difference by just listening to them.
There are no audio cues that I am aware of to determine where the recording was made. I would have to look at the jacket notes in the CD case to know.
So therefore I go back to my statement that the main factor in determining the spaciousness of what you hear is from the speakers. Not from the recording.
Also consider the complaints by some people that when listening to vocals the singers sometimes appear to be 10 feet tall and the sound is coming from high up on the front wall. Obviously that's not how it was recorded. It's the speakers in the room that are creating that image.
There are no audio cues that I am aware of to determine where the recording was made. I would have to look at the jacket notes in the CD case to know.
So therefore I go back to my statement that the main factor in determining the spaciousness of what you hear is from the speakers. Not from the recording.
Also consider the complaints by some people that when listening to vocals the singers sometimes appear to be 10 feet tall and the sound is coming from high up on the front wall. Obviously that's not how it was recorded. It's the speakers in the room that are creating that image.
Last edited:
Re the source: there are trade-offs here as well, as many have commented upon. As listeners we have absolutely no control over these (except our choice to purchase or listen to given media). Fact is, virtually all available stereo program material is multitrack recorded, mixed to stereo, etc. Someone once noted, very validly, that the engineer who does the mixing is as much a part of the artistic product as were the musicians. Sometimes the musicians didn't even need to be in the same studio at the same time, or all the parts are done by one person (e.g. Todd Rundren and many others). For better or worse, the studio and its equipment are effectively part of the band's total sound.
A final "problem" is that much music today, including much of what I listen to is 100% electronic. Trying to record it "live" is problematic
A final "problem" is that much music today, including much of what I listen to is 100% electronic. Trying to record it "live" is problematic
I can add that EnABLing a driver, increasing the amount of information they can transmit, the image/spaciousness goes from good 2D to better 3D. Same room. Good room mind you.
dave
When we think of multi-channel, we usualy think of Home Theatre, but back in the late ‘70s, i had an Advent SoundSpace Control.
It did not affect the fronts, taking the mains signal, running it thru DSP & added time delay, sending to a small set of speakers behind the head. Turn up the rears just louder than the room bounce and it created quite an amazing effect. Key was the set of canned algorithms of real halls and direct control, it was quite versatile, uses 2-channel material and does not affect the fronts.
Source in those days was an LP12. Probably a grace & a grado on it at the time. Fronts were Tangent RS4. I’d only be guessing the amp/preamp.
1979 or so… imagine the computer tech.
Today likely a really niche product given the predominance of HT. But if you could suss out the canned halls, it is probably programable into an Ardino or RasberryPi.
dave
Attachments
This is your second post. Your first one was on 8/12/20 with this brilliant contribution:
"Your ears are the only measurement method required."
I guess that means all the people here who have invested in measurement equipment and software, not to mention their effort in learning how to use it, have been wasting their time and money. Too bad you didn't offer this sage advice a long time ago. Just think of all the time and money people could have saved if they had listened to you.
So please excuse me if I'm having a hard time paying much attention to your latest bromide.
Dave,
Where are you getting this from? Everything I've ever read says that OBs generally function as very good dipoles.
If I'm missing something I'd really like to know about it. Particularly since OB is the very direction I plan to head into soon.
Some of the rear hi-frequency is killed by the basket & magnet structures, even with back to back out of phase tweeters. Probably minor but there are also differences in the dispersion from the back.
’
They also have something else that bothers me that i can only guess at the cause. Al of the ones i have heard or made anyway (a dozen?)
dave
classicalfan, you traditionally make a dipole by using an open baffle, but it is not something that can be done at random. Now, it must be said that open baffles have been used throughout modern history without necessarily any intention on being an actual dipole. Sometimes it was just a practical consideration not to have a rear enclosure.
Current thinking is that an open baffle resembles a dipole cosmetically, but doesn't necessarily have the deeper design work put into it. There may be desirable qualities but there will also be random attributes.
To be specific, the dipole wants to reach a certain directivity pattern.
Current thinking is that an open baffle resembles a dipole cosmetically, but doesn't necessarily have the deeper design work put into it. There may be desirable qualities but there will also be random attributes.
To be specific, the dipole wants to reach a certain directivity pattern.
Yeah, I get what you and Dave are saying about it not being a perfect dipole due to the basket and magnet on the rear. However, there are some drivers that have a fairly open basket structure and could perhaps create a reasonable, if somewhat distorted, figure 8 radiation pattern. At least that would minimize the amount of energy being directed to the side walls.
And then there are examples of OB designs even with side wings, and those will certainly prevent a pure dipole from forming. So there seem to be many successful designs that produce the type of sound associated with open baffles.
The extent of my experience with OBs so far has been listening to Magnepans in a store and I was blown away by the sound. That’s what I want to try to bring into my listening room.
The Maggies are still a candidate, but I want to first try to see what I can do myself with dynamic drivers. And I haven’t seen anything yet that tells me a simple flat baffle with the correct drivers can’t produce a quality OB type of sound. We’ll see. I may be disappointed, but it’s a direction I want to try.
And then there are examples of OB designs even with side wings, and those will certainly prevent a pure dipole from forming. So there seem to be many successful designs that produce the type of sound associated with open baffles.
The extent of my experience with OBs so far has been listening to Magnepans in a store and I was blown away by the sound. That’s what I want to try to bring into my listening room.
The Maggies are still a candidate, but I want to first try to see what I can do myself with dynamic drivers. And I haven’t seen anything yet that tells me a simple flat baffle with the correct drivers can’t produce a quality OB type of sound. We’ll see. I may be disappointed, but it’s a direction I want to try.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.