The "classical" music bias of this group is very evident. In the marketplace "classical" music is not even a consideration (in terms of sales volume of software).
What is it about a WG that makes it incapable of good sound reproduction regardless of the genre?
.....so is the HT bias for the WG group? Sure, there is more money and more people there.. Are you saying then we should not receive any attention?
The fact is, correctly set and well executed dipoles reproduce real acoustic spaces very well. I am not saying the WG are incapable in that respect, but I do have a bias towards image broadening, yes, because that's exactly what a hall does.
I was just asking a question. Out of curiosity, do you yourself attend unamplified music concerts?
The fact is, correctly set and well executed dipoles reproduce real acoustic spaces very well. I am not saying the WG are incapable in that respect, but I do have a bias towards image broadening, yes, because that's exactly what a hall does.
I was just asking a question. Out of curiosity, do you yourself attend unamplified music concerts?
Last edited:
Quite true . . . ORION manages to be "CD" only up to 1000-1200 Hz, after which . . . tweeter. Same with Pluto and LX521, except the loss of CD happens higher, at perhaps 3-4 kHz, after which . . . beaming and tweeter.
This is, of course, far better than most supposedly "controlled directivity" speakers accomplish . . .
I do. In fact I shun the amplified concerts. I don't live in a major city, but we have a lot of good music and festivals here, un-amplified. The owners of horn systems I know tend to be more frequent acoustic concert goers than other speaker owners.
I don't want to put words in Doc Geddes mouth, but doubt that he (or other strict objectivists) do either. Neither do I, although I'd take it if I could get it.
Earl Geddes has achieved the results he desires using a strictly technical, objective approach. The results are good - I've heard them. But I believe that some of us achieve results just as good with other approaches. Use the tools you have.
I do find that the more technically accurate the subjective results, the better it sounds - up to a point. But there comes a point where the technical goals are determined by what sounds right or accurate. Otherwise, what's the point?
Also, let us not forget that the vast majority of listeners don't give a hoot whether it's accurate or not - they just want it to sound good. Usually, that means a lot of bass.
Agreed - mostly - I have not found the point where the measurements alone do not tell me what I want to know.
But sure, its possible to do a good design by just listening, or any other technique for that matter, but based on the experience of doing this for some 45 years, it is highly unlikely. Like the proverbial monkey on a typewriter. The purely objective approach is fast because it is completely reliable (actually there are some situations where one even has to be cautious about the measurements. Acoustic measurements can be very tricky. So when I say "measurements" I mean quality ones.)
To me this statement "I do find that the more technically accurate the subjective results" is the key because this is exactly what I have found as well. Maybe "accuracy" is not so easy to define in this context, but objectively what is NOT accurate is pretty easy to define - non-flat frequency response is NOT accurate. A non-smooth DI is NOT accurate because then each reflection will have a different tone color, how could that be accurate?
When talking about directivity it becomes more difficult because we do have to consider psychoacoustics. But the essential things are know for the most part. Like the fact that there is a tradeoff between solid imaging and good spaciousness when discussing early reflections - even Blauert agrees with this. If spaciousness is everything to you then you will like a wide directivity, but you will give up good imaging as a result. If classical music is your choice then this is a good choice because a stage in a large venue has very little solid imaging. But a solo vocalist on a jazz recording is going to be smeared with the piano player. There are ways to achieve both, but that is another discussion.
Yes, I do, quite often really. I live just a few miles form the University of Michigan which has a well regarded School of Music. I go to recitals, which are often small rooms. Next week I will see "The Rites of Spring" at Hill Auditorium. So you are way off the mark when you suggest that I don't go to passive music venues. But I do not listen to much classical music at home, it is not m preference. I don't have a "preference" really, my listening is quite eclectic. I like some of my son's Rap, Eminem is awesome. My favorite would have to be Linda Ronstadt as she has done some incredible work in her lifetime.
And I have a strong bias for good imaging and great dynamics.
So, there is flat power response behind the speaker? I would think that there is more energy at frequencies below Baffle step.
They can, in many circumstances (the more "anechoic" the better). They are, as Earl notes, probably just what you want for Gaga and Beiber (edit to include EminemBeats me.I think they work very well.
) and Argo. For experiencing music that is normally listened to through loudspeakers (even in "live" performance) they do, or at least can, work well.But they are also, as lolo notes, less satisfactory for "reproducing" the overall "feel" of a live acoustic performance in many "home" environments, since their "controlled" directivity is typically far from "constant", and they tend not to take advantage of the reflected sound field in a way that enhances the illusion of "being there" in an actual concert hall.
Pick your poison, and all that . . .
Last edited:
Yes, they were. I wish you'd stuck around longer or made it to the other house concerts.
We've got a great venue nearby that only does unamplified. Shawn Colvin was there a couple weeks ago with Matt the Electrican. Unfortunately, tickets were a bit out of my reach, pricewise. Jazz Showcase (one of my favorites) runs about 50/50.
We've got a great venue nearby that only does unamplified. Shawn Colvin was there a couple weeks ago with Matt the Electrican. Unfortunately, tickets were a bit out of my reach, pricewise. Jazz Showcase (one of my favorites) runs about 50/50.
Why do you say "non-smooth" instead of "non-flat"? Doesn't a DI that "blooms" (however "smoothly") toward the bass impart a "different tone color" on the reflections?
ofcourse, no doubt about it, what else
but only because you have listened a lot to 'it', and know the audible effect
your previous listening experiences are still your original references
or else measurements would have no meaning
but for professional work you have to rely on a fast and reliable 'standard''
Try this:
Freesound.org - "Poking bonfire with tractor.flac" by dwareing
I think it is the best I have got, at the moment, and quite a good test for headphones or speakers.
I have some good Ambisonic to binaural conversions from files here: Ambisonic Surround Sound. Ambisonics, 5.1, audio recordings — Ambisonic Surround Sound. Ambisonics, 5.1, audio recordings , but people are a bit precious about 'derivative works'..
Power response does not have a location - it is the sum total of all the radiation in all directions. For almost all loudspeaker systems the power response does rise at LFs. down to resonance and then they would fall unless EQ'd.
Well this is just not true. My waveguides ARE both controlled directivity and constant directivity, that many are not is not my concern. WGs tend to avoid early reflections (highly desirable) but if the room is live then there is just as much later reverberation as any other speaker. The issue is the quality of the waveguide, the listening room absorption and the setup of the speakers.
Your waveguides are, but your speakers are not . . . at least that's what the "objective" data at your web site shows.
I would have said several years ago that a flat DI is what is desired. But over the years I have found that a subtle falling DI is deemed more nuetral. Thios is one area where I have given in to "perception" as a guide to a better sound. A flat DI will just sound very bright. This seems natural to me since air absorption does this naturally in the real world - there is more HF loss than LF so flat reverberation will sound bright in a small room. This has been universally quantified and is quite typical. But smooth is the important thing, peaks and dips are bad things.