I think that you oversimplify the problem on one hand and over complicate it on the other.
If there are resonances in the speaker then it will sound colored and these will appear in the polar map. If the speaker is not constant directivity then the speaker will not sound nuetral because the direct and reflected fields are not the same and this shows up on a polar map. If the speaker does not have a narrow directivity then it will inface more strongly with the room boundaries and this shows up on a polar map. If there are nearby reflections and diffractions this will be audible (it's not clear what the subjective description of this is) and this will show up on a polar map.
Listening to you a polar map tells us nothing, and that we know so little about sound reproduction that it's all a big mystery and we have no idea what to do. I do not agree with that position.
Markus, you are a man of complicated extremes. (That's very German of you by the way! No offense intended, its just the way the culture is.)
So you don't see the similarities to distortion measurements? They tell a lot but nothing we're really interested in.
But maybe I should visit a shrink? "Please help me, I don't understand the human auditory system and even worse - I'm German!"
No, I really don't see the similarities. I used to think that nonlinearity was critical, so I studied it in depth. The more I studied the more I concluded that nonlinearity couldn't be why some speaker sound better than others. It had to be something else. Then the more I looked at polar maps the more I could see things that did seem to make a difference. You see, the situation is the exact opposite - the more I studied nonlinearity the less I believed it was important and the more I look at polar maps the more important I come to believe that they are. Similar - I think not.
Maybe I'll change my mind on polar maps too in the next few years, but I don't think so. As they say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating and my recipe seems to be pleasing, so I'm going to keep "makin' da pudin'".
Germans can be wonderfully patient people.
YouTube - Crazy German Kid
and other times not.
Please know I'm just joking. Germany is an amazing place. My wife just returned from there and claims the most telling indication of a cultures core is the order and cleanliness of its public restrooms. She gives Germany an "A+". She was quite fascinated by the experience and can't wait to take me next time. Claims she could live there.
Dan
YouTube - Crazy German Kid
and other times not.
Please know I'm just joking. Germany is an amazing place. My wife just returned from there and claims the most telling indication of a cultures core is the order and cleanliness of its public restrooms. She gives Germany an "A+". She was quite fascinated by the experience and can't wait to take me next time. Claims she could live there.
Dan
Frank
This is not what I was talking about. We want to see detrimental effects by looking at polar maps. It's beyond dispute that they have their merits, e.g. identify distortion artefacts like resonances, but is a "darker" sounding speaker wrong or right? I guess it all depends on the loudspeakers and more important on the room a recording was mastered/mixed. There is no "neutral" sounding speaker. This would be neutral:
All real loudspeakers look grossly different from that. But still they are used to create and assess recordings. I'm sounding like a broken record but obviously a lot of people don't understand the implications of being trapped in Audio's Circle of Confusion. There's no way denying this and the implications are that there is no right or wrong. There's only a more like this or more like that. From my perspective this is the reason why speakers with controlled narrow directivity sound "neutral" because they are better suited to create a sound field that is more similar to that of a typical RFZ (reflection free zone) control room.
Best, Markus
This is not what I was talking about. We want to see detrimental effects by looking at polar maps. It's beyond dispute that they have their merits, e.g. identify distortion artefacts like resonances, but is a "darker" sounding speaker wrong or right? I guess it all depends on the loudspeakers and more important on the room a recording was mastered/mixed. There is no "neutral" sounding speaker. This would be neutral:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
All real loudspeakers look grossly different from that. But still they are used to create and assess recordings. I'm sounding like a broken record but obviously a lot of people don't understand the implications of being trapped in Audio's Circle of Confusion. There's no way denying this and the implications are that there is no right or wrong. There's only a more like this or more like that. From my perspective this is the reason why speakers with controlled narrow directivity sound "neutral" because they are better suited to create a sound field that is more similar to that of a typical RFZ (reflection free zone) control room.
Best, Markus
I hate to sound like a broken record too. But how can we even begin to step into the circle of confusion when records are being made to sound good on inadequate/antiquated speakers like NS10s? I think this again is just another area where no one is actually trying that hard. It's almost always messed up at some stage in the mixing or mastering by second guessing - with a **** poor reference - the quality of the consumers playback.
Before we can make standards we need to figure out exactly what works and is accessible. And by "accessible" I don't mean a huge sacrifice in quality like a boombox or whatever these engineers that smiley face EQ are thinking about.
If I was to draw out a realistic circle of confusion that represented the actual problems that we have with most recordings now it would be a Mixing Engineer being yelled at by an Executive pointing at the listener telling the engineer "CONFUSE HIM!".
Before we can make standards we need to figure out exactly what works and is accessible. And by "accessible" I don't mean a huge sacrifice in quality like a boombox or whatever these engineers that smiley face EQ are thinking about.
If I was to draw out a realistic circle of confusion that represented the actual problems that we have with most recordings now it would be a Mixing Engineer being yelled at by an Executive pointing at the listener telling the engineer "CONFUSE HIM!".
Last edited:
Markus The next two figures would also sound nuetral since they have no resonances.
I also believe that there is a right way to break "the circle of confusion" and thats what I try and do. That everyone does not agree with this, or even try and break the circle, is no reason to abandon the concept that there is a right way and a wrong way to do things.
I also believe that there is a right way to break "the circle of confusion" and thats what I try and do. That everyone does not agree with this, or even try and break the circle, is no reason to abandon the concept that there is a right way and a wrong way to do things.
Having no resonances is an important goal. I never denied that and I never denied that polar maps are meaningful. In fact I would like to see even more detailed (and interactive) 3D balloon data for each and every loudspeaker.
A loudspeaker doesn't sound "neutral" just because it has no resonances. Right from the beginning I tried to talk about the loudspeaker/room interaction. We need to fully understand how reflections affect our perception. The truth is: we just don't understand enough. We have two perception models and an audio community that is not willing to dedicate the required resources to meaningful scientific studies. So every engineering decision made without that level of understanding is just a shot in the dark.
I never said that the circle can't be broken. It could be broken even without the depth of knowledge I'd like to see just by applying a strict parameter set that defines loudspeakers and reflection patterns in rooms.
What's your idea? What's the right way to break audio's circle of confusion?
Okay I know every expert is going to disagree with this one. But in certain situations - mostly movies from my experience - resonance can actually contribute to realism. But I would agree that in most cases it could be considered an artifact. I have just come across movies and scenes where my speakers actually produce complimentary wind and tactile function right at the perfect time when there should be wind coming from the action on the screen.
Your position is just a little too "all or nothing" for me.
I would break it by throwing out the subjective and going for accuracy. There is a limit to this approach, agreed, because as the room interfaces with the speaker, accuracy no longer has a very solid basis. However, I believe that the room and speaker should not interfere with the direct sound in the first "several" ms. This is open to debate, but its greater than 5 and less than 15 so its not such a wide range. After that, it should be as much "room" as possible since this is spaciousness.
You know that I discuss all this stuff and my position in my writings.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.