This whole discussion kind of surprises me. I've never heard the lower and upper part of the spectrum break apart into two different sets of localizations unless there was a very severe problem with the speakers.
I have met people who just don't "get" stereophonic playback, though. Since it is a learned illusion it doesn't surprise me there are people who just aren't able to learn it, and always hear two sources with no phantom image. These are the people who put one speaker in one corner of the room, the other in the opposite corner, and it sounds just as good - or bad - as normal 50~60 degree stereo. As far as I can tell, stereo always sound incoherent to them.
My experience working with phase-shift matrix quadraphonic systems made me very sensitive to "phasiness", unstable localization, and the size, shape and spatial realism of of the ambient impression. If a speaker has little or no ambient impression, it's one of the first things I notice - yet other people I know don't seem to care about ambient impression at all, and are quite happy to listen to (very expensive) systems with no depth or spatial impression at all.
One my gripes with conical horns is that I don't hear much ambient impression - the sound seems to be all coming right at me, with no sense of hall sound. (I call that "shut-in" sounding.) But I haven't heard many conical horns, so if there are any at the RMAF, I'll make a point of tracking them down. Part of the reason I like the LeCleac'h is that they sound the most spacious of any horn I've heard to date.
I have met people who just don't "get" stereophonic playback, though. Since it is a learned illusion it doesn't surprise me there are people who just aren't able to learn it, and always hear two sources with no phantom image. These are the people who put one speaker in one corner of the room, the other in the opposite corner, and it sounds just as good - or bad - as normal 50~60 degree stereo. As far as I can tell, stereo always sound incoherent to them.
My experience working with phase-shift matrix quadraphonic systems made me very sensitive to "phasiness", unstable localization, and the size, shape and spatial realism of of the ambient impression. If a speaker has little or no ambient impression, it's one of the first things I notice - yet other people I know don't seem to care about ambient impression at all, and are quite happy to listen to (very expensive) systems with no depth or spatial impression at all.
One my gripes with conical horns is that I don't hear much ambient impression - the sound seems to be all coming right at me, with no sense of hall sound. (I call that "shut-in" sounding.) But I haven't heard many conical horns, so if there are any at the RMAF, I'll make a point of tracking them down. Part of the reason I like the LeCleac'h is that they sound the most spacious of any horn I've heard to date.
Hello,
Or is it just the opposite? One can learn himself out of stereo illusion.
On the other hand if stereo would be correct method of reproduction, everyone would automatically fall into it and hear the original sound even in front of him. Afterall stereo is quite poor method and that's why some cannot consider it as believable illusion of real sound event, thus they hear the speakers instead for example.
I thought quadrophonics never worked well. It does not work even in theory, since the idea of making phantom images 360 degrees around of you is doomed by the fact that pinna localisation will reveal the speakers especially at the sides and behind of you. Some say the whole thing was just a vain attempt of audio industry to sell double as much speakers and amplifiers
For me, ambience is one of the most important things in music listening at home. That is after good music of course
This is interesting. Do you have an explanation for LeCleac'h being spacious? For what I've seen the plots, it beams very severely. How do you think it helps in spaciousness?
- Elias
Lynn Olson said:
Or is it just the opposite? One can learn himself out of stereo illusion.
On the other hand if stereo would be correct method of reproduction, everyone would automatically fall into it and hear the original sound even in front of him. Afterall stereo is quite poor method and that's why some cannot consider it as believable illusion of real sound event, thus they hear the speakers instead for example.
I thought quadrophonics never worked well. It does not work even in theory, since the idea of making phantom images 360 degrees around of you is doomed by the fact that pinna localisation will reveal the speakers especially at the sides and behind of you. Some say the whole thing was just a vain attempt of audio industry to sell double as much speakers and amplifiers
For me, ambience is one of the most important things in music listening at home. That is after good music of course
This is interesting. Do you have an explanation for LeCleac'h being spacious? For what I've seen the plots, it beams very severely. How do you think it helps in spaciousness?
- Elias
hi Elias
i cannot answer WHY, but i can confirm and agree on that one with Lynn : i use LeCleach horns now, and the spaciousness, 3D presentation and sound stage is a strength of these horns. I have never got a better result before in this regard, wheter with tractrix, radial, nor multi cell horns.
Based on a few recent comments here and elsewhere, I am starting to wonder whether the answer to the question "what is the major factor contributing to good phantom imaging" is lower waveform distortion, since it seems that this type of distortion - not the usually-mentioned flatness of off-axis response - is, by being somewhat random in nature, interpreted as not being part of the "information" but "noise" and thus not part of the acoustic holograph that is the phantom image, loosely speaking.
The hearing mechanism then places the source of this noise at the speaker, and quite rightly.
That's my notion as of today, and I'm stickin' to it!
I'm thinking this may relate to the performance of the conical horns vs the LeCleac'h
The hearing mechanism then places the source of this noise at the speaker, and quite rightly.
That's my notion as of today, and I'm stickin' to it!
I'm thinking this may relate to the performance of the conical horns vs the LeCleac'h
Hello,
We need to understand why. It is the only reasonable way to get improvement in things.
Ok, you have compared LeCleac'h with other types of horns and it wins in spaciousness. That only tells something. How about in comparison with other types of radiators than horns?
- Elias
We need to understand why. It is the only reasonable way to get improvement in things.
Ok, you have compared LeCleac'h with other types of horns and it wins in spaciousness. That only tells something. How about in comparison with other types of radiators than horns?
- Elias
angeloitacare said:
Lynn, I asked that before but will ask it again in case you missed it: how many people have you met that are not able to hear phantom sources?
Elias, would you be so kind to answer my questions?
Best, Markus
P.S.
That's not a property of the speaker but of the room interacting with the speaker. As every room is different there are much more parameters that need to be taken into account than attributes (btw which?) of a particular speaker.
Elias, would you be so kind to answer my questions?
Best, Markus
P.S.
That's not a property of the speaker but of the room interacting with the speaker. As every room is different there are much more parameters that need to be taken into account than attributes (btw which?) of a particular speaker.
markus76 said:
Not many - I'd guess maybe four or five or so out of the scores of audiophiles and designers I've known over the last thirty-five years. They frequently have elaborate mono systems, unusual locations for the stereo speakers, and will go on at some length about how mono recordings sound so much better than stereo. It took me a while to realize this was a perceptual thing - like a partially colorblind person not being able to fine-tune a color TV or adjust the colors in Photoshop, while by contrast, a professional in a color-print lab can see subtle color variations most of us don't see.
Yes, no problem as far as I could tell, although it would be a little hard as an outsider to know what they're perceiving. It was a subtle deficit as far as I could discern - audiophiles seem to differ in their perception of spatiality as well. I suspect it's a mixture of inherent physiology and training, like musical ability.
In addition to actual musical and sonic preferences, I'm pretty sure there are significant underlying perceptual differences between different groups of people. Having grown up in Asia, people do experience the world - what we would call "reality" - in a subtly different way than Westerners do.
In addition to actual musical and sonic preferences, I'm pretty sure there are significant underlying perceptual differences between different groups of people. Having grown up in Asia, people do experience the world - what we would call "reality" - in a subtly different way than Westerners do.
The issues raised here are important, but I have not felt inclined to interject because the basic topic of this thread is on another subject. I had addressed Tom's interesting comments in some detail, but my browser crashed and I lost the whole thing. I'd like to see a new thread specifically on this topic.
Spaciousness is a result of the sources interaction with the room. You cannot take the room out of the equation, but you can discuss how the source plays off of the rooms natural characteristics. I addressed this in another thread.
And I think that the reviewers of my loudspeakers would rate them very high on imaging so lets not just throw them out of the picture.
Spaciousness is a result of the sources interaction with the room. You cannot take the room out of the equation, but you can discuss how the source plays off of the rooms natural characteristics. I addressed this in another thread.
And I think that the reviewers of my loudspeakers would rate them very high on imaging so lets not just throw them out of the picture.
I'll second Dr. Geddes suggestion of a new thread - not that I have any problem with it being here, but another thread is a better location (and certainly easier to find and archive).
As for asking questions, I don't know any mono nuts in the Denver area, otherwise I'd ask. They're easy enough to spot, since they're always ranting about how much they dislike stereo, and stereo recordings. Maybe some will attend the RMAF, you never know.
It's occurred to me that people with partial color-vision deficits might have rather idiosyncratic ways of watching color TV - although people viewing in PAL or SECAM parts of the world would have less scope in wrecking the color than NTSC viewers.
P.S. I fully agree with Dr. Geddes that a low-diffraction loudspeaker will have superior image quality - in every perceptual dimension - compared to a high-diffraction speaker.
As for asking questions, I don't know any mono nuts in the Denver area, otherwise I'd ask. They're easy enough to spot, since they're always ranting about how much they dislike stereo, and stereo recordings. Maybe some will attend the RMAF, you never know.
It's occurred to me that people with partial color-vision deficits might have rather idiosyncratic ways of watching color TV - although people viewing in PAL or SECAM parts of the world would have less scope in wrecking the color than NTSC viewers.
P.S. I fully agree with Dr. Geddes that a low-diffraction loudspeaker will have superior image quality - in every perceptual dimension - compared to a high-diffraction speaker.
Spaciousness is most certainly NOT an aspect solely the result of *listener* room boundary reflections.
Critical damping of walls (multiple layers of blankets and foam), floor, and ceiling with a pair of "spacious" loudspeakers quite clearly proves this point (though obviously for people that can hear it).
Actually, (beyond the fact that it doesn't sound natural), adding such damping only marginally reduces "spaciousness", but also benefits the perspective by "cleaning it up" (i.e. removing the "hall of mirrors" effect).
Rather reproducing spaciousness, (beyond reverberant listener room reflections), is largely attributed to 4 things:
1. horizontal dispersion
2. *very* low millisecond linear decay behavior (the majority of which is within about 9 db from the average and is less than .5 ms).
3. phase angle and rotation relative to freq. (particularly around 80-300 Hz, but higher in freq. as well).
4. extreme low freq. reproduction.
The first two are predominantly within the lateral "image" localization range of freq.s.: aprox. 1-12 kHz (typically stated around 2-8 kHz). Lateral "images" are strongly dominated by the listener's axis of +/-15 degrees horizontal - forward and reward. Further "out" from these narrow horizontal ranges "spaciousness" dominates. (Note this is all direct (or correlated with the baffle) sound, and it closely approximates a dipole from a visual perspective.. with the least sensitivity near the 90 degree points to the "sides".)
"2" (with respect to spaciousness) is about producing upper freq. "hall sound", or reverberant energy from the boundaries, (real or processed), that the sound was recorded "in".
"3" (unlike "1") is mostly about the depth plane, but it does have an inter-relationship with "width" as well, particularly with regard to phase differences between channels (i.e. loudspeakers). Increase apparent depth and you'll often decrease apparent width.
"4" is almost exclusively about reproducing low freq. "hall sound", or the "build-up" of low freq.s at room boundaries (of the recording site). In effect the room's dimensions are aurally highlighted due to an increase in pressure at room corners (and to a lesser extent the transition between floor and wall or wall and ceiling). (Note: these are the room corner's of the recording - real or "virtual".) Listener room boundary transitions can decrease the aural dimensions of low freq. hall sound. But they *can* also have the beneficial effect of "acoustically" increasing spl's and thereby decrease net Harmonic distortion (for a given level). You can do some interesting experiments with dual (independent) subwoofers with fully variable phase - place one in one corner and one in another (horizontally opposed relative to the listener) and adjust the phase of only one sub (..with both being sent the same signal). You do need a substantially extended low freq. response (near average in-room) to get a really good "effect" though.
EDIT: feel free to move this to another thread if desired.
Critical damping of walls (multiple layers of blankets and foam), floor, and ceiling with a pair of "spacious" loudspeakers quite clearly proves this point (though obviously for people that can hear it).
Actually, (beyond the fact that it doesn't sound natural), adding such damping only marginally reduces "spaciousness", but also benefits the perspective by "cleaning it up" (i.e. removing the "hall of mirrors" effect).
Rather reproducing spaciousness, (beyond reverberant listener room reflections), is largely attributed to 4 things:
1. horizontal dispersion
2. *very* low millisecond linear decay behavior (the majority of which is within about 9 db from the average and is less than .5 ms).
3. phase angle and rotation relative to freq. (particularly around 80-300 Hz, but higher in freq. as well).
4. extreme low freq. reproduction.
The first two are predominantly within the lateral "image" localization range of freq.s.: aprox. 1-12 kHz (typically stated around 2-8 kHz). Lateral "images" are strongly dominated by the listener's axis of +/-15 degrees horizontal - forward and reward. Further "out" from these narrow horizontal ranges "spaciousness" dominates. (Note this is all direct (or correlated with the baffle) sound, and it closely approximates a dipole from a visual perspective.. with the least sensitivity near the 90 degree points to the "sides".)
"2" (with respect to spaciousness) is about producing upper freq. "hall sound", or reverberant energy from the boundaries, (real or processed), that the sound was recorded "in".
"3" (unlike "1") is mostly about the depth plane, but it does have an inter-relationship with "width" as well, particularly with regard to phase differences between channels (i.e. loudspeakers). Increase apparent depth and you'll often decrease apparent width.
"4" is almost exclusively about reproducing low freq. "hall sound", or the "build-up" of low freq.s at room boundaries (of the recording site). In effect the room's dimensions are aurally highlighted due to an increase in pressure at room corners (and to a lesser extent the transition between floor and wall or wall and ceiling). (Note: these are the room corner's of the recording - real or "virtual".) Listener room boundary transitions can decrease the aural dimensions of low freq. hall sound. But they *can* also have the beneficial effect of "acoustically" increasing spl's and thereby decrease net Harmonic distortion (for a given level). You can do some interesting experiments with dual (independent) subwoofers with fully variable phase - place one in one corner and one in another (horizontally opposed relative to the listener) and adjust the phase of only one sub (..with both being sent the same signal). You do need a substantially extended low freq. response (near average in-room) to get a really good "effect" though.
EDIT: feel free to move this to another thread if desired.
Scott, why make it that complicated? Spaciousness is solely created by reflections (mostly lateral). More on that can be found in Jens Blauert "Spatial Hearing".
Elias, speaking of Blauert – maybe you mixed the two main mechanisms on how our brain interprets signals received by our ears:
1) interaural level differences – works with the whole audible spectrum
2) interaural time differences
- interaural time differences up to ca. 1.5 kHz
- interaural time differences of the signals envelope (German "Signalhüllkurve") from 150 Hz on
Best, Markus
P.S. I really would like to start a new thread but don't know where to open it on diyaudio.com. There's no subsection "Acoustics" – Mods?
Elias, speaking of Blauert – maybe you mixed the two main mechanisms on how our brain interprets signals received by our ears:
1) interaural level differences – works with the whole audible spectrum
2) interaural time differences
- interaural time differences up to ca. 1.5 kHz
- interaural time differences of the signals envelope (German "Signalhüllkurve") from 150 Hz on
Best, Markus
P.S. I really would like to start a new thread but don't know where to open it on diyaudio.com. There's no subsection "Acoustics" – Mods?
Did this discussion get moved?
Scott
Not sure that I agree with all you are saying, but I certainly don't quite understand it all. I do think that you might be using a deffinition of "spaciousness" that is different than mine and mine is the same as Markus. In room acoustics spaciousness refers to the cross-correlation (lower is better) of the later sound after the early integration time of the early reflections. In other words it is related to how difuse the reverberant energy is after about 20 ms. If there is no significant reverberation after about 20 ms, then there can't be any spaciuosness in the sound field. Dead room like you suggest don't have large reverb fields in this time zone. Getting a live small room - so that it can have spaciousness - without dominate early reflections, is, IMO, a main objective of room and speaker design. Its not easy.
It appears that many people are refering to the "perceived spaciousness" in the recording. I caution that there is no deffinition of this and that it would be a highly personal thing. Using this deffinition will also conflict with my and Markus deffinition per Blauert and Kuttruff.
Scott
Not sure that I agree with all you are saying, but I certainly don't quite understand it all. I do think that you might be using a deffinition of "spaciousness" that is different than mine and mine is the same as Markus. In room acoustics spaciousness refers to the cross-correlation (lower is better) of the later sound after the early integration time of the early reflections. In other words it is related to how difuse the reverberant energy is after about 20 ms. If there is no significant reverberation after about 20 ms, then there can't be any spaciuosness in the sound field. Dead room like you suggest don't have large reverb fields in this time zone. Getting a live small room - so that it can have spaciousness - without dominate early reflections, is, IMO, a main objective of room and speaker design. Its not easy.
It appears that many people are refering to the "perceived spaciousness" in the recording. I caution that there is no deffinition of this and that it would be a highly personal thing. Using this deffinition will also conflict with my and Markus deffinition per Blauert and Kuttruff.
Ah new thread I see.
To me this stuff is critically important because if we don;t know what it is we are trying to achieve and why then we are just playing with ourselves in the dark.
One of the most important things that I look for in a loudspeaker is "do they disappear?" If I close my eyes (or they are behind curtains as in my case) do I have trouble telling where the loudspeakers are actually located. If so, then they are doing a good job of imaging what is on the recording. But if I can always seem to find the loudspeaker then there is a problem because the loudspeakers attributes are interfeering with the sources imaging intent.
Very few speakers in my experience disappear and almost no horn systems. It seems like you can always tell precisely where that horn is at. That always disturbed me.
To me this stuff is critically important because if we don;t know what it is we are trying to achieve and why then we are just playing with ourselves in the dark.
One of the most important things that I look for in a loudspeaker is "do they disappear?" If I close my eyes (or they are behind curtains as in my case) do I have trouble telling where the loudspeakers are actually located. If so, then they are doing a good job of imaging what is on the recording. But if I can always seem to find the loudspeaker then there is a problem because the loudspeakers attributes are interfeering with the sources imaging intent.
Very few speakers in my experience disappear and almost no horn systems. It seems like you can always tell precisely where that horn is at. That always disturbed me.
There is a spaciousness, 3D image and soundstage, perceived in different degrees , depending on the capability of the system, and probably mainly the speakers, to reproduce the recorded event.
And there is a influence of the room and room reflexions. These are two different things, and should probably be considered separately.
And there is a influence of the room and room reflexions. These are two different things, and should probably be considered separately.
Quite correct - I agree completely. What I am cautioning about is that term has concrete meaning and deffinition in room acoustics but it does not for loudspeaker subjective impression. If we don;t keep the two things clear there will be endless confusion and probably arguments that are completely semantic.
To me loudspeakers can't have "spaciousness". Rooms do and recordings can have a "phantom" spaciousness which the loudspeakers can allow to be perceived to a lessor or geater degree. But there is nothing about a loudspeaker that can create spaciousness.
To me loudspeakers can't have "spaciousness". Rooms do and recordings can have a "phantom" spaciousness which the loudspeakers can allow to be perceived to a lessor or geater degree. But there is nothing about a loudspeaker that can create spaciousness.
Lynn Olson said:
Hello, do you know any "mono listeners fanclub" or something like that? I would like to know more about high quality mono sound.
If you have some information, please post it into this thread: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=128034&highlight=
Thank you!
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.