No Planet10 it's not anechoic because it doesn't work. The difference is very subtle.
It is just avoiding your room can interfere with the original signal. My room, for example, has received a treatment just beyond the speakers that are well detached from the walls and a little bit around the central listening position. The rest of the room is normal, including the side listening position were there is just a sofa.
This is necessary if you want to get maximum dynamics (and thus realism and fidelity) because the so called room gain causes masking!
How can it be possible? Think about music as a sequence, a story, that evolves in time and space in a unique way. If your room is free to vibrate then a substantial part of the original information will be lost. At the time t you should have a certain signal however, because you room is free to vibrate, those standing waves generated an instant before will mask the signal that has to happen!
This masking could be named as masking by self-correlated sound due the existence of two rooms: the original (that can be a real one like a church, a hall etc. or an artificial one created in the studio) and your room. It's a masking that adds to the well known physiological masking from our hearing system.
A microphone is not subject to none of these maskings because it does not assign an emotional state to sounds and doesn't use a human sense to perceive the sounds. It works according to physics.
If you use an equalizer (analog or digital) you have not sorted out the problem because the equalization works on the complicated superposition of the original signal from your speaker and the room contribution. The equalizer just changes the reciprocal amplitudes but can do nothing on the time evolution. The masking is still there.
Cheers,
45
Last edited:
I apologise, it was a little mischievous of me. 🙂
Fortunately, no differences of opinion have occurred, and I've been careful to confine myself to practical posts since.
I'm for threads like this. Metadiscussion and religious wars (vinyl vs CD etc) have their uses. But they should have their place. My first thought on coming across this thread was, "What is it doing here in Full Range? Why hasn't it been moved to Everything Else?"
I didn't think you were being mischievous Don Hills but I was suprised that nobody took issue with it. I agree with you. I would have thought that the lounge or some place like that would be more suited to this kind of discussion but then again it appears that I may have posed my question in the wrong section too. Maybe we need a study as well as a lounge!!!!
jamikl
jamikl
What you are talking about is reproduction of one acoustic space (recorded), within another (room). SL is a well-known pioneer in this area and he is challenging the audio community if there's anything better than uniform radiators (dipoles/omnis/cardioids).
Slides: http://linkwitzlab.com/AES-NY'09/NY-stereo challenge.pdf
Speech: http://linkwitzlab.com/AES-NY'09/P20-4 SL.mp3
These are the types of topics which I think diyAudio should get into (eg try to prove or disprove), and leave cable discussions to manufacturers and their herd
What you are talking about is reproduction of one acoustic space (recorded), within another (room). SL is a well-known pioneer in this area and he is challenging the audio community if there's anything better than uniform radiators (dipoles/omnis/cardioids).
Slides: http://linkwitzlab.com/AES-NY'09/NY-stereo challenge.pdf
Speech: http://linkwitzlab.com/AES-NY'09/P20-4 SL.mp3
These are the types of topics which I think diyAudio should get into (eg try to prove or disprove), and leave cable discussions to manufacturers and their herd
Anything based on frequency response is a no-through road. A piece of music is a unique space-time event for the listener.
Time is the real variable and because our brain does not comply to the law of physics (it is not time-invariant) there is not a unique relationship between time e frequency domains - as is for a microphone thanks to the Fourier theorem. So any attempt to work out theories based on the tonal balance, polar response etc. (anything in the frequency domain) generates totally unpredictable results. It's just a vicious circle.
The guy you mention hasn't got a fundamental fact: masking by self-correlated sound is a time domain effect for the listener.
Cheers,
45
I know Linkwitz. It's nothing more than classical acoustics.
My conclusions are based on solid foundations and real facts. That's the outcome 25 years of commercial and political free research from guy, Lorenzo Russo, who has created simply the best sound machine ever seen on the planet! 😎
You can see a little bit of it in my avatar.
Cheers,
45
Eh actually he seems to believe that acoustics are misunderstood and basically ignored and filtered out with cognition. It's not that different from what you are preaching just with an entirely different conclusion and proofs.
Toole's stuff is all about what people percieve. That things like 1st reflections are important is because he did lots and lots of valid blind tests with people listening to music.
The slides & the other stuff on line do not give a full picture. Everone should read the book.
Toole's mantra seems to be 2 ears + a brain trump. Measurements have to serve what people hear.
dave
People quite often use "properly" in this context because experimental findings do not coincide with their preconceptions, so the experiment was naturally irrelevant.
Not that I am implying this is true of any of the utterances appearing in this thread.
rcw.
Not that I am implying this is true of any of the utterances appearing in this thread.
rcw.
I am afraid but all these people talk about the subject of music reproduction just partially.
Some of them are psychologists but don't know how a HiFi system works, some have all-comprehensive knowledge but nothing or little in detail or know about classical acoustics and speakers only or know about amplifiers only etc etc.......
The Moss System has been built according to the listener and the first generation event. It is a complete system: software, source, amplifier, loudspeakers, cables, room and listener!
Properly means that the problem is in the time domain. It is not in the frequency domain because of the listener. You can't go from one domain to the other if there is the listener because the listener makes the system non-invariant.
You can't theorize, design and build the HiFi system in the frequency domain for something happening in the time domain if you cannot move in a unique way from one domain to the other. That's why results are unpredictable.
The full system has been built following always the same logic ( i.e. the solution that involves the minimum error) and observed facts in the time domain only. In fact any person - experienced or not - who has listened to it has got the same opinion!!!
Anyone can go to Rome and listen by himself......
Cheers,
45
Some of them are psychologists but don't know how a HiFi system works, some have all-comprehensive knowledge but nothing or little in detail or know about classical acoustics and speakers only or know about amplifiers only etc etc.......
The Moss System has been built according to the listener and the first generation event. It is a complete system: software, source, amplifier, loudspeakers, cables, room and listener!
Properly means that the problem is in the time domain. It is not in the frequency domain because of the listener. You can't go from one domain to the other if there is the listener because the listener makes the system non-invariant.
You can't theorize, design and build the HiFi system in the frequency domain for something happening in the time domain if you cannot move in a unique way from one domain to the other. That's why results are unpredictable.
The full system has been built following always the same logic ( i.e. the solution that involves the minimum error) and observed facts in the time domain only. In fact any person - experienced or not - who has listened to it has got the same opinion!!!
Anyone can go to Rome and listen by himself......
Cheers,
45
Last edited:
Planet10, it is enough to understand they continue to theorize in the frequency domain about something that happens in the time domain, not having a unique way to correlate the results.
Measurements using other instruments than humans cannot serve. Acutally they are misleading if you try to sort the musical performance out them.
Last edited:
45,
it's a basic misconception that a speaker is a live instrument. Have you ever looked at different musical instruments and how differently sound is radiated? No single loudspeaker is capable of reproducing that for all real and virtual instruments. How many speakers would you need to reproduce a symphonic orchestra? A single speaker for each instrument? That would be a lot of speakers.
Apart from that, you would run into problems recording music for such a system.
Stereo (or Multichannel) isn't capable of recording or recreating exactly the same earsignals from the original performance (although crosstalk cancellation techniques are). So it's not reasonable to define "original" like you do. The original is what the mixing and/or mastering engineer heard. This is the starting point to think about perception, recording techniques, speakers and rooms.
Best, Markus
it's a basic misconception that a speaker is a live instrument. Have you ever looked at different musical instruments and how differently sound is radiated? No single loudspeaker is capable of reproducing that for all real and virtual instruments. How many speakers would you need to reproduce a symphonic orchestra? A single speaker for each instrument? That would be a lot of speakers.
Apart from that, you would run into problems recording music for such a system.
Stereo (or Multichannel) isn't capable of recording or recreating exactly the same earsignals from the original performance (although crosstalk cancellation techniques are). So it's not reasonable to define "original" like you do. The original is what the mixing and/or mastering engineer heard. This is the starting point to think about perception, recording techniques, speakers and rooms.
Best, Markus
- Status
- Not open for further replies.