Go Back   Home > Forums > >
Home Forums Rules Articles diyAudio Store Blogs Gallery Wiki Register Donations FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers

Loudspeaker perception
Loudspeaker perception
Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 15th October 2008, 10:55 AM   #501
Salas is offline Salas  Greece
diyAudio Chief Moderator
 
Salas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Athens-Greece
Loudspeaker perception
graaf thanks.

Maybe it is precisely because it naturally goofs, its easier to artificially fool it?
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th October 2008, 11:01 AM   #502
Elias is offline Elias  Finland
diyAudio Member
 
Elias's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Suomi
Hello,

Linkwitz's comments on Toole's book are quite interesting

Quote:"It deals with the reproduction of sound - which existed in a space - inside another space. My only regret is that the potential of 2-channel playback in doing so has not been fully explored. This is understandable because the conventional box loudspeaker with its frequency dependent directivity index has been used for almost all of the observations that are discussed. In fact, the particular interaction of a box loudspeaker with the listening room makes it more difficult for our ear/brain perceptual apparatus to hear the recording venue's space and acoustics, provided that such information has been captured in the recording process."

http://www.amazon.com/Sound-Reproduc...4067161&sr=1-1

This seems to indicate that Toole's approach to the problem was not optimal and maybe too limited even that generally applicaple conclusion could be drawn from it.

- Elias
__________________
Liberate yourself from the illusion of two speaker stereo triangle
Dipole Bass vs Monopole Bass Stereophonic Sound from a Single Loudspeaker 3 Speaker Linear Stereo Matrix Wavelets
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th October 2008, 11:25 AM   #503
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally posted by salas
graaf thanks.

Maybe it is precisely because it naturally goofs, its easier to artificially fool it?
you are welcome

and yes - I think that it might be the case, Your hypothesis seems to be very plausible, very strong from logical point of view

best regards!
graaf
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th October 2008, 11:39 AM   #504
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally posted by Elias
This seems to indicate that Toole's approach to the problem was not optimal and maybe too limited even that generally applicaple conclusion could be drawn from it.
yes indeed
his research seem not to cover the cases of most interesting and promising loudspeakers setups, fundamentally different from conventional front firing box, like dipole, omni, Dr Geddes' CD speakers, not to mention more exotic things like line sources in Beveridge setup or conventional box speakers in Stereolith setup

it is understandable as Dr Toole is in business of selling conventional boxes and his main research agenda is how to make THEM play the music best in a typical customer listening environment
best = resulting in highest consumer satisfaction (hence "listeners' preference" as main measure of quality)

perhaps generally applicable conclusions could be drawn from his research but perhaps not?

is the question of spatial cues working in case of PHANTOM stereo sound sources in small reverberant space (as case different from REAL sound source localization) discussed as such in the book?

if not it is a pity because it is fundamental question

I certainly don't want anybody to summarize 500-pages book here
I just hope that the above simple question can be answered without such summarizing


best!
graaf
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th October 2008, 12:20 PM   #505
markus76 is offline markus76  Germany
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Quote:
Originally posted by graaf it seems that elementary of spatial hearing of stereo PHANTOM sources has not been written yet
Third try: post #453
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th October 2008, 12:25 PM   #506
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally posted by markus76


Third try: post #453
Quote:
Originally posted by markus76

Benjamin, AES Convention Paper 6968, 2006
Aarts, JAES 48 #3, 2000
Lee, AES Convention Paper 6142, 2004
Holland, AES Convention Paper 4581, September 1997
Makita, EBU Review #73, 1962
Sande, JAES 27 #5, 1955

In German:
Wendt, Rundfunktechnische Mitteilungen Band 8, 1964
Ortmeyer "Mitteilungen aus dem Heinricht-Hertz Institut ...", 1965
Does anyone have acces to the above AES papers or German sources?

Do those paper cover that specific problem of:

spatial cues working in case of PHANTOM stereo sound sources in small reverberant space as opposed to REAL sound sources localization ?

Is it really impossible to summarize in short what spatial cues are working?

best regards!
graaf
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th October 2008, 12:29 PM   #507
mige0 is offline mige0  Austria
diyAudio Member
 
mige0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Austria, at a beautiful place right in the heart of the Alps.
Thanks Graaf now we finally got somewhere both in terms of bias in science as well as that basic conditions / setup (and I would second Salas with his *entire audio chain to contribute in this* anytime) predicts results especially electronics behaviour isn't any insignificant when it comes to "spaciousness" (used as layman's term)

One who has difficulties to spot that - in his own subjective perception - isn't exactly predestined for the subject IMO.





-----------------

Something else I would like to throw into this discussion is what I came across, not knowing how to interpret in terms of psychoacoustic relevance.

Doing some more simus to compare monopole and dipol behaviour in rooms it is obvious that the wave front SPL from a monopole degrades faster than from a dipole.
Difference was about 15dB for 100ms *and* almost unaffected by room treatment.

Anybody who can attest / disprove that and / or explain the possible benefits / drawbacks.

Unfortunately it does not show up this way in Elias simus back in #416 - #418

Michael
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th October 2008, 12:48 PM   #508
gedlee is offline gedlee  United States
diyAudio Member
 
gedlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Novi, Michigan
Quote:
Originally posted by Elias
This seems to indicate that Toole's approach to the problem was not optimal and maybe too limited even that generally applicaple conclusion could be drawn from it.
Lets not go too far here. Toole's work is still the best information that we have even if it can be criticized for its scope - he admits this himself, that there is paltry info about small rooms. But I would say that 90% of what he says is completely valid and unless there is some competing evidence, Toole's results will have to remain as the best that we have.

I know that you would like to discount it all since little of it supports your position.
__________________
Earl Geddes Gedlee Website
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th October 2008, 01:02 PM   #509
mige0 is offline mige0  Austria
diyAudio Member
 
mige0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Austria, at a beautiful place right in the heart of the Alps.
Quote:
Originally posted by Elias


Are you sure the aim is different or it is out of context? ....


Yes, I am actually -



Quote:
Originally posted by Elias


Thus the method you describe using mics and speakers on the wall IS NOT out of context at all. In fact pretty tempting idea.

- Elias

- but I would like to be proven wrong.
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th October 2008, 01:11 PM   #510
Elias is offline Elias  Finland
diyAudio Member
 
Elias's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Suomi
Hello,

Quote:
Originally posted by mige0
One who has difficulties to spot that - in his own subjective perception - isn't exactly predestined for the subject IMO.
May I ask for a clarification. To spot what? To spot a bias in science or to spot an amplifier from the whole chain, for example?


Quote:

Doing some more simus to compare monopole and dipol behaviour in rooms it is obvious that the wave front SPL from a monopole degrades faster than from a dipole.
Difference was about 15dB for 100ms *and* almost unaffected by room treatment.

Anybody who can attest / disprove that and / or explain the possible benefits / drawbacks.

Unfortunately it does not show up this way in Elias simus back in #416 - #418
How it can degrade at different rate?

If you think of lets say 10th room reflection, it will arrive at the same time independent of source directivity. But the maximum amplitude of the randomly selected reflection is also the same regardless of source directivity and this is when the main axis of the image of the directional source is towards the listener. Of course average amplitude of reflections at the given time frame is much lower level if source has any directivity.

That's why you can see monopole having very small amplitude deviation of impulse response amplitude, whereas dipole and cardioid the deviation is huge.

If you are talking about degrading the _quality_ of the wavefront, then you are correct, monopole wavefront loses it's quality fastest.

- Elias
__________________
Liberate yourself from the illusion of two speaker stereo triangle
Dipole Bass vs Monopole Bass Stereophonic Sound from a Single Loudspeaker 3 Speaker Linear Stereo Matrix Wavelets
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Loudspeaker perceptionHide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:16 PM.


Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Resources saved on this page: MySQL 15.00%
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2019 diyAudio
Wiki