Markus - its not - don't bother, I've had this argument a dozen times and it just doesn't sink in.


I just tried a calculation for my small room with a mean Alpha of 0.4 to see what it would give.There is an ideal RT for most listening rooms. It is in the 3. to .5 range depending on size. You might be better considering mean alpha because then you can factor out room volume. A mean alpha of about .4 (40% of energy absorbed per "bounce") is a good target and works over a very broad range of sizes, from domestic room up to large movie theaters!
Length is 4.8m, width 3.45m, height 2.4m, which gives a volume of 39.744m^3, and a surface area of 72.72m^2. Using the sabine equation I get 0.22s.
The room is at about 0.4ms now and sounds a bit too live to me, (I prefer the drier end of the scale) but 0.22 seems quite low, unless I've calculated it wrong ? Mind you, this is the smallest listening room I've ever had, so I'm basing my expectation on somewhat larger rooms.
Last edited:
Returning to the main topic of the thread, I'd like to kick off some discussion on a point that hasn't been discussed explicitly yet, and has at most only been tangentially brushed past, despite it being perhaps the most important pre-requisite question that must be answered before the question of directivity can even be asked.
And that is, I think listeners expectations of stereo (and sound reproduction in general) can be broken down into two broad groups - the "you are there" camp, and the "they are here" camp, and as soon as you realize which camp you are in, the types of speaker directivity and room treatment you prefer will tend to follow on from those.
I'll put my hand up and say that I have both feet firmly in the "you are there" camp, and that is my expectation of stereo reproduction. For me, the ultimate feat of reproduction is to sit down in a comfy chair, put a piece of music on, close my eyes, and be transported to another place, finding both the realism and definition of the instruments and the acoustic space that they're in seeming so real that you feel like you could open your eyes and you'd be right there in the audience.
An auditory illusion, of course, but a compelling and extremely enjoyable one nonetheless. Extra marks to a system that can maintain the same convincing auditory illusion even when your eyes are open and contradicting everything your ears hear.
Of course a large percentage of non-classical recordings don't capture an actual acoustic space with microphones, and are synthesised electronically via many various means, but that doesn't matter to me if the sense of space and sound-scape is realistic sounding and compelling. (Usually this requires a lot more than simple pan-potting in the production/mixing process though)
As a "you are there" listener, I don't want to hear my room signature plastered all over every recording I listen to, drawing me out of the acoustic illusion in the recording, and covering up all the small details and nuances in the sound mix, such as low level reverb tails etc.
This doesn't mean I want to listen in an anechoic chamber, but that I prefer a room at the drier end of the reverberation scale. The room should have just enough reverb of its own that a completely "dry" recording will not sound unnatural and dull, and inhabiting the room as a place to live feels comfortable.
(Very low and very high levels of reverberation are both uncomfortable to live in)
On the other hand it should have a low enough amount of reverberation that embedded reverberation and low level cues in the recording can take precedence over what the room adds, masking out the room signature.
I've also come to realise that with 60 degree stereo reproduction there isn't enough width to produce a convincingly wide image without some side-wall reflection, but that it shouldn't be too strong or specular.
A much wider than normal angular speaker separation coupled with a true centre channel may be a way to achieve the same result without relying on a wall reflection, but it's something I'll have to explore when I get the time, space, and money to do so.
As a generalization I would say the "you are there" camp would prefer a low reverberation time with a well damped room, and either long speaker to side-wall distances (long wall placement) or somewhat directional speakers, and I doubt anyone truly in this camp would ever consider full omni's or flooders, etc. High (but not infinite) direct to reflected ratio is the order of the day, with carefully controlled non-specular reflections.
I would also say people in this camp enjoy music with embedded ambience cues more so than drier recordings, although this may be a consequence of the room/speaker set-up as much as actual musical taste.
Then there is the "they are here" camp. Their expectation of stereo (or reproduction in general) is that the performance is transported into their living room. They literally want to hear a band playing in their room spread out in front of them where the speakers are, as if the band had been invited over for the weekend.
The difference is that whilst the goal is still for the instruments to sound tangible and real in front of you, there is no expectation of being transported to some other acoustic space that doesn't sound like the room you're actually in. It's perfectly ok and even desirable, for the band to sound like they're in your room with your rooms acoustic signature, just as if they were actually there.
I would generalize that this type of listener probably favours wide uniform dispersion, a fairly live reverberation time, and may even like or prefer omni and flooder type arrangements. I suspect this group may also have a higher percentage of acoustic musicians in it than the "you are there" group, but that's just a hunch.
To this type of listener the speaker is more of an acoustic instrument, standing in for an actual musician, rather than a magical portal into another acoustic space entirely.
This thread could go on forever debating what the ideal directivity of speakers are (and room characteristics) but if people are coming at it from these two different angles each with very different expectations, I don't think the question can ever be resolved with an answer that suits everyone.
Of course not every listener or speaker/room set-up falls entirely in either camp, it is possible to choose speakers and a room so that a reasonable job can be done for the "you are there" crowd on the right recordings, but at the same time the "they are here" crowd will enjoy it on the right recordings, but it will be something of a compromise.
Likewise some speaker/room configurations are fundamentally incompatible with listener expectations - for example an omni in a highly reflective and reverberant room is never going to satisfy a true "you are there" listener.
So hands up, which type of listener are YOU ? 😀
I think I have a pretty good idea of which camp many of the people in this thread belong in, but it would be interesting to see who considers their selves on one side or the other, or even if there is anyone with one foot in each camp.
By the way I want to be clear that I don't think one side is more right than the other, it's purely a matter of what your expectations are and what you enjoy most about sound reproduction. I prefer one approach but I see the other as equally valid, just not to my liking.
And that is, I think listeners expectations of stereo (and sound reproduction in general) can be broken down into two broad groups - the "you are there" camp, and the "they are here" camp, and as soon as you realize which camp you are in, the types of speaker directivity and room treatment you prefer will tend to follow on from those.
I'll put my hand up and say that I have both feet firmly in the "you are there" camp, and that is my expectation of stereo reproduction. For me, the ultimate feat of reproduction is to sit down in a comfy chair, put a piece of music on, close my eyes, and be transported to another place, finding both the realism and definition of the instruments and the acoustic space that they're in seeming so real that you feel like you could open your eyes and you'd be right there in the audience.
An auditory illusion, of course, but a compelling and extremely enjoyable one nonetheless. Extra marks to a system that can maintain the same convincing auditory illusion even when your eyes are open and contradicting everything your ears hear.
Of course a large percentage of non-classical recordings don't capture an actual acoustic space with microphones, and are synthesised electronically via many various means, but that doesn't matter to me if the sense of space and sound-scape is realistic sounding and compelling. (Usually this requires a lot more than simple pan-potting in the production/mixing process though)
As a "you are there" listener, I don't want to hear my room signature plastered all over every recording I listen to, drawing me out of the acoustic illusion in the recording, and covering up all the small details and nuances in the sound mix, such as low level reverb tails etc.
This doesn't mean I want to listen in an anechoic chamber, but that I prefer a room at the drier end of the reverberation scale. The room should have just enough reverb of its own that a completely "dry" recording will not sound unnatural and dull, and inhabiting the room as a place to live feels comfortable.
(Very low and very high levels of reverberation are both uncomfortable to live in)
On the other hand it should have a low enough amount of reverberation that embedded reverberation and low level cues in the recording can take precedence over what the room adds, masking out the room signature.
I've also come to realise that with 60 degree stereo reproduction there isn't enough width to produce a convincingly wide image without some side-wall reflection, but that it shouldn't be too strong or specular.
A much wider than normal angular speaker separation coupled with a true centre channel may be a way to achieve the same result without relying on a wall reflection, but it's something I'll have to explore when I get the time, space, and money to do so.
As a generalization I would say the "you are there" camp would prefer a low reverberation time with a well damped room, and either long speaker to side-wall distances (long wall placement) or somewhat directional speakers, and I doubt anyone truly in this camp would ever consider full omni's or flooders, etc. High (but not infinite) direct to reflected ratio is the order of the day, with carefully controlled non-specular reflections.
I would also say people in this camp enjoy music with embedded ambience cues more so than drier recordings, although this may be a consequence of the room/speaker set-up as much as actual musical taste.
Then there is the "they are here" camp. Their expectation of stereo (or reproduction in general) is that the performance is transported into their living room. They literally want to hear a band playing in their room spread out in front of them where the speakers are, as if the band had been invited over for the weekend.
The difference is that whilst the goal is still for the instruments to sound tangible and real in front of you, there is no expectation of being transported to some other acoustic space that doesn't sound like the room you're actually in. It's perfectly ok and even desirable, for the band to sound like they're in your room with your rooms acoustic signature, just as if they were actually there.
I would generalize that this type of listener probably favours wide uniform dispersion, a fairly live reverberation time, and may even like or prefer omni and flooder type arrangements. I suspect this group may also have a higher percentage of acoustic musicians in it than the "you are there" group, but that's just a hunch.
To this type of listener the speaker is more of an acoustic instrument, standing in for an actual musician, rather than a magical portal into another acoustic space entirely.
This thread could go on forever debating what the ideal directivity of speakers are (and room characteristics) but if people are coming at it from these two different angles each with very different expectations, I don't think the question can ever be resolved with an answer that suits everyone.
Of course not every listener or speaker/room set-up falls entirely in either camp, it is possible to choose speakers and a room so that a reasonable job can be done for the "you are there" crowd on the right recordings, but at the same time the "they are here" crowd will enjoy it on the right recordings, but it will be something of a compromise.
Likewise some speaker/room configurations are fundamentally incompatible with listener expectations - for example an omni in a highly reflective and reverberant room is never going to satisfy a true "you are there" listener.
So hands up, which type of listener are YOU ? 😀
I think I have a pretty good idea of which camp many of the people in this thread belong in, but it would be interesting to see who considers their selves on one side or the other, or even if there is anyone with one foot in each camp.
By the way I want to be clear that I don't think one side is more right than the other, it's purely a matter of what your expectations are and what you enjoy most about sound reproduction. I prefer one approach but I see the other as equally valid, just not to my liking.
Last edited:
They are here, all the time, watching me with they little eyes. I think I will consult an audio exorcist.
(btw, good approach DB)
(btw, good approach DB)
can be broken down into two broad groups - the "you are there" camp, and the "they are here" camp
This is precisely true, I have made this same comment many times.
To me it comes down to this: the "you are there" never works, how can it? (Standard two channel playback assumed here!) You are expecting that somehow the recordings "acoustic" will out-shine that of the local space. That simply cannot happen. If there are reflections and reverberation in the local space then they are way too short to not overcome and/or confound the recordings acoustic. If the room is deadened to remove these VERs then there are no lateral reflections and no spaciuosness because the acoustic on the recording comes from the wrong direction to be convincing. The "you are there" illusion just cannot happen with two channels in real rooms. You need either crosstalk cancelling or HRTF recordings, etc. or multichannel. THEN you CAN "be there". So, in general, people who are in this camp are perpetually disappointed because they are looking to do the impossible.
If practitioners of this camp persist in trying to "trick" their brains into believing that "they are there" then they find that totally swamping out the recordings acoustic (omni speakers, or indirect pointing speakers) offers the "best" compromise, it sounds more "real" to them, but it's hardly "you are there", its just a new venue, quite unlike the "real" venue of the original recording. To me its still "unreal", not convincing at all.
Now the "they are here" camp can be quite satisfied in normal rooms with two channels. This illusion can be very convincing and satisfying because you are not looking to replace the rooms natural acoustic with an unnatural one.
Place me firmly in the "they are here" camp and happy to be there.
You are quite correct however, that a failure to recognize this distinction will lead to unending discussions with no conclusions or resolutions.
Most excellent post Simon, on all fronts. I am in the "You Are There" camp. It's that illusion that I really enjoy. It's sort of a virtual reality trick, transporting you from place to place. The "They Are Here" trick I also enjoy, but not as much. Some recordings do it really well.
Probably why I enjoy live recordings and diffuse reflections behind the speaker. They fit with my taste in illusions.
Probably why I enjoy live recordings and diffuse reflections behind the speaker. They fit with my taste in illusions.
So, in general, people who are in this camp are perpetually disappointed because they are looking to do the impossible.
I hope by this you mean in a small room or typical living room. Because it's not impossible at all, but it usually does take a bit of space. I have heard it in large domestic settings, tho. Unfortunately space is not the only ingredient. If only it were so easy. The equipment has to be up to the task as well.
Member
Joined 2009
Simon,
I'm in agreement with the points you made in your assessment of the current state of music reproduction in #1043. I'd like to extend the discussion with some thoughts on my own.
I think the term "studio recording" implies that no part of the venue leaves it's signature on the recording. The recording environment should be as acoustically dead as possible. The ambiance of such recording will be created by the listening space. There should be no need for sound treatment in listening spaces unless there are serious problems with the room.
When the artist decides they want to channel the experience of being there to the listener the recording should be labeled "live". The album title should read in the lines of "The organ BLANK at cathedral BLANK" or "The band BLANK at the BLANK". Those recordings should be enjoyed in a way that the listening space is minimally excited. Some standardization rules must be set to classify a reproduction system as a "capable to relay a live experience".
Anyway my point is that "ambiance" should not be a property of a studio recording unless it's an artificial enhancement which most of the time sounds stupid anyway. "Being at the performance" or the "Musicians in your room" should be an artistic decision and not a preference of the listener.
I'm in agreement with the points you made in your assessment of the current state of music reproduction in #1043. I'd like to extend the discussion with some thoughts on my own.
I think the term "studio recording" implies that no part of the venue leaves it's signature on the recording. The recording environment should be as acoustically dead as possible. The ambiance of such recording will be created by the listening space. There should be no need for sound treatment in listening spaces unless there are serious problems with the room.
When the artist decides they want to channel the experience of being there to the listener the recording should be labeled "live". The album title should read in the lines of "The organ BLANK at cathedral BLANK" or "The band BLANK at the BLANK". Those recordings should be enjoyed in a way that the listening space is minimally excited. Some standardization rules must be set to classify a reproduction system as a "capable to relay a live experience".
Anyway my point is that "ambiance" should not be a property of a studio recording unless it's an artificial enhancement which most of the time sounds stupid anyway. "Being at the performance" or the "Musicians in your room" should be an artistic decision and not a preference of the listener.
I agree with Earl that the "You are there" experience is unobtainable with stereo. You can never fully recreate the recording venue acoustics and the envelopment (LEV) with two speakers. You can, however, approach closely it with a good recording and an outstanding system.
Still, my opinion is that you could also make a distinction between a "They are here" experience and "Listening into the recording venue" (like through an auditory "window"). One could argue it would be logical that the former should contain no dominant cues from a different space. The latter would be like approximating the "You are there" as far as possible, I guess.
Still, my opinion is that you could also make a distinction between a "They are here" experience and "Listening into the recording venue" (like through an auditory "window"). One could argue it would be logical that the former should contain no dominant cues from a different space. The latter would be like approximating the "You are there" as far as possible, I guess.
I'll put my hand up and say that I have both feet firmly in the "you are there" camp, and that is my expectation of stereo reproduction. For me, the ultimate feat of reproduction is to sit down in a comfy chair, put a piece of music on, close my eyes, and be transported to another place, finding both the realism and definition of the instruments and the acoustic space that they're in seeming so real that you feel like you could open your eyes and you'd be right there in the audience...
Simon,
I am sitting next to you in the you are there camp. It is not a concious decision but this is what my speakers do with me and my wife. I can only fight it with bright light and matches to hold the eyes wide open 😱
Every once in a while during a listening session I open the eyes or turn the light up and my brain is nearly confused by the visual scene.
But that is in a room with higher RT and I love omnis and flooders in there. And don't think that I do not know how narrower designs sound in that or similar rooms. They create a window through one looks into the auditory scene. Funny but not a real pleasure. Toeing such speakers in does not sound realistic to me.
I hope by this you mean in a small room or typical living room.
Yes, of course. Playing back an orchestra in the same room that it was recorded in (a "dry" recording, of course) and I am sure that the realism would be profound. But thats not "reality" - its not going to happen.
I have some sympathy for the "window on the venue" idea as I get that illusion at times, but close my eyes and actually believe that I am in a 100,000 m^3 space? My ears are not that easy to fool , they know where they are at. No stereo system creates the same illusion that a binaural recording/playback system does.
Last edited:
Great posts Simon and Dr. Geddes. If you really want to do the "they are here" you will need serious dynamics that are not often even on the recording barring the movie industry. None the less, pro drivers or line arrays, IOW big speakers are necessary. Hard for me to say what limits the dynamics the most, the recording or the speakers. There's only one part we have firm control over. I know with small(ish) speakers, "they are here" has never been remotely possible, "you are there" isn't really either. The "you are there" is more like "you are there in a dream" not in reality. I also like the tittle "sounds like HiFi" for this camp.
Right now I'm liking relatively big speakers and surround sound in a fairly dead (RT60 ~.3s above 100Hz). Best of both worlds. For stereo your probably better off with "they are here" vs. "you are there" if true "realism" is what you are looking for. Both will be a compromise to some degree of course predetermined by the recording. Stereo(true or not) recordings for the most part won't do either very well--there are a plethora of intentions on recordings and they seem to come from a third camp:"sounds good to me". The "you are there" camp should really switch their tittle to "you are there in a dream" b/c it never sounds remotely like "you are there" with typical stereo. Conversely I think the "you are there" is easier to dream. Your brain seems to do it on it's own. Imagination is powerful. I think that's its appeal. It's something different from the "hammering away at hard work" lives many of us live. I don't know that we want the cold hard facts all day and then again at night in general. The "you are there" camp is really enjoying the state of being enveloped by sound and letting the brain do its thing. Accuracy not required.
Pano, I think everyone is always discussing "small rooms" here unless otherwise stated. Hopefully anyway as most of us live in homes. Edit-oops, Dr. Geddes beat me to it.
My message would be "stop joking around, get surround sound."
😛
Dan
Right now I'm liking relatively big speakers and surround sound in a fairly dead (RT60 ~.3s above 100Hz). Best of both worlds. For stereo your probably better off with "they are here" vs. "you are there" if true "realism" is what you are looking for. Both will be a compromise to some degree of course predetermined by the recording. Stereo(true or not) recordings for the most part won't do either very well--there are a plethora of intentions on recordings and they seem to come from a third camp:"sounds good to me". The "you are there" camp should really switch their tittle to "you are there in a dream" b/c it never sounds remotely like "you are there" with typical stereo. Conversely I think the "you are there" is easier to dream. Your brain seems to do it on it's own. Imagination is powerful. I think that's its appeal. It's something different from the "hammering away at hard work" lives many of us live. I don't know that we want the cold hard facts all day and then again at night in general. The "you are there" camp is really enjoying the state of being enveloped by sound and letting the brain do its thing. Accuracy not required.
Pano, I think everyone is always discussing "small rooms" here unless otherwise stated. Hopefully anyway as most of us live in homes. Edit-oops, Dr. Geddes beat me to it.
My message would be "stop joking around, get surround sound."
😛
Dan
Last edited:
I believe you can have both using the same speakers in the same room. It's all about what's on the recording. On a Led Zepp recording, you are never going to get "you are there", but "they are here" still sounds mighty good. On the other hand, on a well recorded orchestral piece, the same speakers can produce the illusion of "you are there."
Again, I'm referring to Pano's system, which did both, "you are there" and "they are here", equally well. Like Dantheman said, the "they are here" thing refers mostly to dynamics whereas "you are there" is more down to speaker directivity and the room.
Again, I'm referring to Pano's system, which did both, "you are there" and "they are here", equally well. Like Dantheman said, the "they are here" thing refers mostly to dynamics whereas "you are there" is more down to speaker directivity and the room.
Too much dynamic panning/multitracked guitars on a lot of that older stuff for "they are here" in general. Hendrix and Zep do a lot of it. I love it though. "sounds good!" "They are here" only better than live. 🙂 I love my stereo!
Dan
Dan
I've created a system that gives me very good "I am there in a dream" with many CDs or DVDs. It depends on how the program was recorded. Binaural recordings work surprisingly well with my inter-aural cancellation circuit engaged, when I sit in exactly the right place, which I usually do anyway. If you prefer that all recordings are done with no environmental ambient sounds, and leave it up to the playback listening room acoustics to fill that in, you will have the same environmental ambient sound all the time. That may not be real bad, but I for one sure do appreciate going into different spaces, real or synthetic.
I think listeners expectations of stereo (and sound reproduction in general) can be broken down into two broad groups - the "you are there" camp, and the "they are here" camp, and as soon as you realize which camp you are in, the types of speaker directivity and room treatment you prefer will tend to follow on from those.
I believe the "you are there" vs "they are here" argument misses the point completely - and the point is REALISM
realistic stereo is a stereo that can produce a perception of "some different (from Your room) space opens before You" and/or "some real sound sources are there before You" depending on the recording
conventional stereo is incapable of both
of course "you are there" in the sense of being transported to another place is not possible with stereo and cannot be expected - ambiophonics perhaps can do it
but conventional stereo lacking the required set of early reflections - see Markus' posts - cannot give even the
definition of the instruments and the acoustic space that they're in
so it is not the question of
This thread could go on forever debating what the ideal directivity of speakers are (and room characteristics) but if people are coming at it from these two different angles each with very different expectations, I don't think the question can ever be resolved with an answer that suits everyone.
because still both "you are there" and "they are here" experiences can be more or less realistic - more or less CONVINCING - and this depends exactly on directivity and speaker-room interface
an omni in a highly reflective and reverberant room is never going to satisfy a true "you are there" listener.
not true - let me also say here hands up guys, You know who You are! 😉
oh yeah, here is already one of them: 😀
Simon,
I am sitting next to you in the you are there camp. It is not a concious decision but this is what my speakers do with me and my wife. I can only fight it with bright light and matches to hold the eyes wide open 😱
Every once in a while during a listening session I open the eyes or turn the light up and my brain is nearly confused by the visual scene.
But that is in a room with higher RT and I love omnis and flooders in there.
yes, this distinction - "you are there" vs "they are here" - misses the point of directivity debate
because this is question of recording - have You ever really experienced with the same recording "you are there" in one speaker-room configuration and then "they are here" with another?
ps.
so I am with ra7 completely (underlines mine):
I believe you can have both using the same speakers in the same room. It's all about what's on the recording. On a Led Zepp recording, you are never going to get "you are there", but "they are here" still sounds mighty good. On the other hand, on a well recorded orchestral piece, the same speakers can produce the illusion of "you are there."
Again, I'm referring to Pano's system, which did both, "you are there" and "they are here", equally well.
of course, I am really glad that I am not alone in this thread on that point 😀
Last edited:
RT60/RT30 is interesting. It certainly worked for me.
Here you can see the difference in my listening room of wall treatments. In the 1st post you'll see the simulations from CARA software. They pretty much agree with the before and after measurements (much to my delight).
Reducing the T30 times in the midrange had a huge audible effect on music and speech in the room. It went from the bare room "ping" to a fairly comfortable space. Still room for improvement, but a big step in the right direction. The better measurement sounds better, just as you might expect.
I've used CARA quite a bit as well, and recommend it often. Excellent program.
Like a loudspeaker modeling program - when used right, you can simulate the speaker well enough to get a design close enough to dial by measurements - this is true of CARA for simulating the loudspeaker/room as a system.
My living room has nice dimensions and near 12 ft. ceilings. I have 4 absorptive panels on the right side (4 " fg about 2 ft x 3 ft). Left of the speakers I've hung an oriental rug on the wall as the left side wall is very near the speaker. The wall behind the speakers is all glass but we have thick velour "theatrical drapes" with a liner. When you pull those drapes you really notice a difference as you talk.
Definitely. I noticed this most starkly at first at an audio trade show, of all places. The position of the drapes in that room made a big difference in sound quality. One might expect a change, but in this particular room, it was drastic. I know trade show rooms are terrible, but I am usually able to get pretty good sound at them.
In rooms where I can use constant directivity cornerhorns, I find that a set of pleated cloth drapes hanging along the walls adjacent to the speakers can sometimes improve imaging. No other treatments are really necessary when using this design. Some people cradle the tweeter with foam, but I don't notice a difference. The drapes make sense to me though.
My more conventional speakers need a little more help though. They're directional up high, but not down low, so the midrange reflections are a problem. I think Earl's idea of a "massive mound" of pillows behind the speakers would help, but it's not the most attractive setup so I use flanking subs instead. Those do a good job of at least mitigating the response ripple from the reflections.
If you really want to do the "they are here" you will need serious dynamics that are not often even on the recording barring the movie industry. None the less, pro drivers or line arrays, IOW big speakers are necessary. Hard for me to say what limits the dynamics the most, the recording or the speakers. There's only one part we have firm control over. I know with small(ish) speakers, "they are here" has never been remotely possible, "you are there" isn't really either. The "you are there" is more like "you are there in a dream" not in reality. I also like the tittle "sounds like HiFi" for this camp.
I know that some recordings are pretty compressed, but there's a lot of stuff out there that isn't. I find that high-efficiency speakers really deliver the goods in terms of effortless dynamic range.
I also agree with you about movie soundtracks. Seems like they are recorded and/or mixed so much better. Sometimes I hear music on a movie soundtrack that sounds tons better than any version I can get on CD, occasionally even better than vinyl. As a result, I've been on a quest to get music on Bluray, which is also stunning (when you can find it).
I've been toying with the idea of going to reel-to-reel tape. I have a pretty good deck, but I've always used it for archival storage. I used it in the 1980s to record vinyl albums that I played often, to prevent me from wearing out my records. But Albert Porter has me just about convinced that this might be the best source I could use, what with some of the one-generation-away tapes available in that format.
My message would be "stop joking around, get surround sound."
Definitely. I can get the accuracy and imaging in spades, when using constant directivity cornerhorns or matched-directivity two-way speakers and flanking subs. Add surrounds to the mix, and you get envelopment as well. Not just simulated envelopment, like what you get from an overly-live room but true lateral sounds from side-channels. Some of the Bluray recordings I have must have had microphones placed in the same orientation as the speakers, because you hear the performer on stage, and instruments are placed right where you see them. You can't see the audience, but you know where they are because you'll hear an occasional comment or whistle - and they're placed eerily next to you, maybe just behind, or just in front and hard to one side, whatever. It's a really neat effect.
Preference for "you are there" or "they are here" is not something you just make as a decision, but it naturally follows as a consequence from your favourite music genre. Most music genres have settled recording practises, as well as performance places. Some music genres fits only into the either or and does not sound right if tried to fit into 'wrong' camp.
Conventional stereo is incapable of doing mostly anything, as seen also within this thread, the stereo triangle cannot deliver perceivable phantom images at high freqs for 50 % of the population but two tweeters are perceived as separate sound sources ! Stereo horse is born dead but running wild !
Conventional stereo is going down like a cow's tail ! Due to this enormous unsatisfaction people keep on inventing improved underground practises like Ambiophonics, stereolithic projection, 'flooders', Beveridge placements, Carlssons, etc. etc.
Multichannel is not needed ! Two media channel is perfectly enough for the two ears. More media channels is just a waste of bandwidth. It is all about how to generate and present the ear signals from the two media channels. Som systems are more succesfull than others. Note: Two media channels does not mean two loudspeakers ! They are independent.
- Elias
Conventional stereo is incapable of doing mostly anything, as seen also within this thread, the stereo triangle cannot deliver perceivable phantom images at high freqs for 50 % of the population but two tweeters are perceived as separate sound sources ! Stereo horse is born dead but running wild !
Conventional stereo is going down like a cow's tail ! Due to this enormous unsatisfaction people keep on inventing improved underground practises like Ambiophonics, stereolithic projection, 'flooders', Beveridge placements, Carlssons, etc. etc.
Multichannel is not needed ! Two media channel is perfectly enough for the two ears. More media channels is just a waste of bandwidth. It is all about how to generate and present the ear signals from the two media channels. Som systems are more succesfull than others. Note: Two media channels does not mean two loudspeakers ! They are independent.
- Elias
Elias, what about 4, 6, or 8 ears?
It will be a compromise in every imaginable sense !
Oh, and stereo is definitely capable of "sounds good" 😉
Dan
"sounds good", but only if the recording was "good" 😀 But hey, isn't this purely subjective 🙄 We want the science !!! LOL 😀 And accuracy we want too !!!
- Elias
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
- Home
- Loudspeakers
- Multi-Way
- What is the ideal directivity pattern for stereo speakers?