When listening to less flawed loudspeakers that problem goes away.
It isn't a flaw, but part and parcel of how stereo works.
I.e., it only works as intended when you're sat dead centre between two speakers.
When listening to wide-directivity speakers in the far field, you're really mostly listening to the reflected sound from the room.
This may well be what you prefer, but it superimposes the listening room's own acoustic signature (in terms of reflections, reverberation, etc.) over that of the original recording venue. In fact, the former swamps the latter, thereby preventing you from hearing the low-level reverberation cues that are present in the recording (assuming that you are listening to acoustic music that was properly miked in the first place, of course. For multi-tracked pop music anything goes...)
I guess I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum from you: I prefer controlled (approx. 90º H) directivity speakers listened to in the near field.
When listening to good acoustic recordings, the "you are there" realism of the ensuing reproduction is jaw-dropping, and not even comparable to the "spacious" but fuzzy "they are (sort of) here" effect produced by, say, omni-directional speakers listened to in the far field of an untreated room (e.g., MBLs at Hi-Fi shows).
That's bad analogy. Better analogy would be - i enjoy painting from 2-3 meters (from where i can see everything) much better than from 20-30 meters where details get blurry and i fail to see what the artist wanted to express.
I do enjoy music itself very much when i listen mid or nearfield but besides that i can hear much more details than farfield. Not to mention lower listening volume and because of it lower distortion and almost no power compresison. When i close my eyes i feel that i can almost touch the orchestra. Quite different and much more involving feeling than farfield.
It's like going from crt screen to hi-res led tv.
To me at least.
But, as Marco_gea said, it has to be properly engineered, (in some way) less flawed loudspeaker.
cheers
Last edited:
Sure, even for free
A simple one (just a baffle without walls used for simulation)
Tolvan Data
With a box
Loudspeaker Design Software
Full scale multiway loudspeaker simulation and design
Software
You can't in general terms say that people prefer wide or narrow dispersion. You have to consider it in a context that includes room size, listening distance and room acoustics. The preference you speak of isn't so much a preference for a particular directivity, it is rather a preference for a direct to reflected ratio, still in relation to the specific acoustics of the room.
In general terms, the closer you sit to the speakers and the lower the average reflectivity of room surfaces, the wider dispersion should be. The farther from the speakers you sit and the more lively the room, the higher directivity.
This is a controverted issue but i was quoting Toole, and Toole quoting others like Moulton defending wide horizontal dispersion, in defense of what might called recreational listening vs more analytical professionnal tasks. (ASW/Image broadening and loudspeaker directivity)
Augspurger too:
Btw, i always found a bit ridiculous audiophiles ( especially the objectivist anti snake oil crowd...) trying to mimick pro attitudes...🙄
Last edited:
This is in direct contradiction with the 'multiple-look hypothesis', which is also referred to in Toole's book. It goes along the lines of people extracting more (timbral) information from a sound when they also hear its reflections.
My personal experience too is that if you listen in what is often erroneously called the near-field, the direct sound becomes the dominant determinant of the sound you experience. Sit beyond the critical distance and the speaker's off-axis response and power-response start playing a larger role. Therefore, as you move farther away from the speaker, its flaws become actually more audible.
Dr. Toole in his book hypothesizes that this is one of the reasons that among professionals it has historically become the norm to sit close to the speakers, as well as to put damping material on all reflection points and to achieve a lowish reverberation time. This should make issues in the speakers' directivity less obvious.
The room dimensions and speaker/listener placement play a major role on timing of reflections, amplitude is secondary but important also. Timing is very important as stated By Toole et al. Early reflections are generally bad, after 20ms not so. In typical European living rooms we can't avoid those but when sitting close to the speaker, direct sound dominates in amplitude. This is also depending on frequency.
Early Reflections Are Not Beneficial
Early Reflections 101 - Acoustic Frontiers
Early Reflections Are Not Beneficial
Early Reflections 101 - Acoustic Frontiers
Agree, but this is only the consequence of "optimizing" a design for axial response only (or mainly...) disregarding anything else, especially power response.
Btw, as said before,maybe in part because no loudspeaker is acoustically small enough, i don't like the sound of any speaker at less than 1m. Don't know why, but...🙄
Aka Mr Acousticpanel...
😀RealTraps - Home
Most audio brainwashing experts like to quote Toole, which i find way more cautious when dealing with these issues...
Last edited:
Of course, I agree . I was posting in reponse to GDO's assertion that those who choose to listen to high directivity speakers can't possibly enjoy it and therefore most only use them in a pro setting as tools..
So yes, I agree, there is no point making that assertion and implying that wide dispertion is correct. 🙂
Ains... it's a statistical question, not a matter of truth, nor correctness...😱
Wide dispertion seems to be prefered by the majority, even if this majority is formed by a crowd of non discerning non critical not trained enough listeners who use loudspeakers mainly in a recreative way.😎
When I look at a painting very closely I am also enjoying the painting, evaluating it in a different way, in fact feeling much much more close to a human actually physically doing something skillfully (or otherwise..). In fact, other than sense of scale, you can see a painting in full much more easily when printed in a book - perhaps you could make an analogy of good music being just as well appreciated on a radio as anything else..
One good example is when I got to see a Dali up close, really close. I'd seen the overall paintings many many times in books and prints etc and to be honest not really wowed by them as some seem to be. Then I got up close and saw how much detail there was in each and the vibrant colours (the way this one was lit anyway) - suddently I grew a strong appreciation! Something I liked about it that wasn't apparent from a distance.
Where do you get this idea from? Are there studies?
Could it be that wide dispertion sounds nice enough, you can hear the music fine and so yes, they say they like it? And have they listened to narrow dispersion to then make a comparison?
Why do people I experience appear to prefer their headphones to home stereos?
Another example is Van Gogh, almost disturbing seen up really close: this guy had really a bee inside...
A way to minimize edge diffractions and also first reflections is to make a large synergy/unity horn. My friend Legis has a huge pair of those, assisted by tapped bass horns and various supertweeter/backside tweeters. The sound is like putting earphones on, even they are in a 3x5m room with concrete walls!
Legis' Horny Tales
Legis' Horny Tales