I prefer "perceived distance" over "depth". The last one is not well defined and everyone interprets it differently. The perceived distance is much lower with narrow directivity. This is right. But only if the recording carries no room information.
And it is not only about reflections from the front wall. It is about all reflections.
Narrow baffles produce a higher directivity than wide baffles (in fact an infinite baffle produces even wider directivity). But without measuring the vertical directivity you really know nothing about the speaker. Both dimensions count.
Auralization only works with head phones. We are talking about speakers in living rooms.
I do most of my listening in a small room, it is very noticible that wide baffle speakers do sound much darker and has much less soundstage depth then speakers with narrow baffles, same drivers used. It is obvious that the wide baffle is blocking more frequencies from radiating behind the cabinet, the wall behind the speakers stands more in a acoustic shaddow, infinite baffles produces none backward radiation and has no stereo depth at all. Loudspeakers with very narrow dispersion may work better in larger rooms where reflections has dropped in level relative the direct sound.
Auralization only works with head phones. We are talking about speakers in living rooms.
Visit the link in my post and start the program...
Lots of sound files on that site to.
Iow: The soundfield is highly highly dependent on microphone technology.
Combine that with the DI of speakers also influencing the soundfield.
So the question remains.
What are you listening to?
Anwer: No one knows.
I'd say that infinite baffles produce no backward radiation thus allowing the accurate perception of the depth of the recording. Speakers with significant reflections off the front wall add their own signature "depth" to everything played on them.
I prefer "perceived distance" over "depth". The last one is not well defined and everyone interprets it differently. The perceived distance is much lower with narrow directivity. This is right. But only if the recording carries no room information.
And it is not only about reflections from the front wall. It is about all reflections.
Narrow baffles produce a higher directivity than wide baffles (in fact an infinite baffle produces even wider directivity). But without measuring the vertical directivity you really know nothing about the speaker. Both dimensions count.
Auralization only works with head phones. We are talking about speakers in living rooms.
You have me confused with the use of nonstandard terminology; seems like usage that you have made up for your personal application;
perceived distance
depth
narrow directivity
wider directivity
None of these terms are in my acoustics texts.
Thanks DT
Hmm, maybe the reason ist that english is a foreign language for me. I try to clarify my terminology.
perceived distance = the perceived distance to the sound stage or sound source. E.g. when you close your eyes you feel the the sound source (e.g. a voice) is about 1 m away from you, but the physical distance to the speakers is 3 m.
depth = I don't really know what people mean with "depth". It is one of the words that (even in German) has no real definition. I read it from people who tried to describe different parameters with it. Sometimes I read it in association with low directivity index and sometimes with high. This is a conflict from my point of view.
narrow directivity = narrow dispersion
wider directivity = wider dispersion
Hello Nils,
I do not want to be crabby for 2019.
I suppose that “perceived distance” and “depth” are subjective descriptors of the illusion we call sound stage. Really hard to measure and quantify. GedLee speaks of early reflections being integral to sound stage and reflections in general related to the sense of “space”, as in the size of the room. Many of these subjective words perhaps should be defined as we use them.
Other terms are precisely defined; Beamwidth vertical, beamwidth horizontal, directivity index (DI), directivity factor (Q) and distance, plus others. You can use mathematical relationships to calculate one with the others.
Two terms that do not exist are vertical directivity (use beamwidth vertical ) and horizontal directivity (use beamwidth horizontal). You can have tall and thin coverage or short and wide coverage with equal directivity.
Thanks DT
http://www.jblpro.com/pub/manuals/jbl_ssdm.pdf
See chapter 3.
No problem. I've been always a strong supporter of a well defined glossary. I will try to use the correct words in the future. Thanks.
Since there was some discussion over Charles Sprinkle's comments on elliptical Revel-style waveguides vs the M2 Imaging Control waveguide (due to the AVS blind test) in both this thread and the M2 thread, thought I'd link the polars of the Kali LP-6.
Its Charles' latest implementation of the elliptical waveguide. This map was generated from the CLF data that Kali supplied from independent measurements. I also generated polars for a few comparable Genelec speakers using their CLF data. Note that the measuring distances were different (8m for Kali, and 1.6m for Genelec). Red represents -5dB scale. White line represents -6dB from on-axis SPL at that frequency.
Last edited:
Very poorly acoustically treated IMO. One has to wonder how much it has effected the results of Harman.
I also find the discussion a bit strange without taking the room into account. You can achieve awesome imaging with almost any speaker if the room is treated in the needed matter.
And you can also get spaciousness from a speaker with high directivity with the appropriate treatment.
If one is stuck without being able to treat the room, the placement and room dimensions will decide much of the result besides the dispersion pattern of the speakers.
I think people are giving the M2 vs Salon listening session too much credit. In a different environment and perhaps with different listeners or music material the result could have been different.
Besides, quick listening sessions doesn't necessarily give the same result as listening over time. I've discovered that many times when AB testing no side wall treatments vs treated side walls. No side walls treatment (as long as the speaker has decent power response) will almost always sound most impressive the first few seconds.
A basic argument (or problem) of hi-fi reproduction is deciding what sounds better, and this problem revolves around the participants accepting some sort of testing, e.g., ABX, etc. I don't want to dredge up that argument, but in trying to address the arguments so that all sides might see resolution, I find that the comment above about "quick listening sessions" and "side wall treatments" actually are key.
Recently, I put together a thread on the subject of subconscious effects of low phase growth loudspeakers in rooms with controlled early reflections. This subconscious listening effect emerged after first controlling room reflections, and then taking out sources of phase growth within loudspeakers via use of first-order crossover filters and even eliminating some low pass filters altogether, like Danley has done with the SH-50, and others have also done (more on that subject in the linked thread). Bjorn has hit a subject that more-or-less negates the premise of this thread's title, IMO.
Based on listener results of the premise of the thread I think that few people caught that the Revel Salon 2 probably has better vertical directivity control over a wider bandwidth than the JBL M2--especially below 800 Hz. (I realized this after staring at a fair amount of EASE data posted online of comparable direct-radiating and horn-loaded loudspeakers of these configurations.)
Unless the listening room in which the two loudspeakers were placed had controlled for these in-room reflections in order for the participants to hear the differences in directivity and phase coherence of the two models (and had made some changes in the recordings/genres used to show off the differences), I don't believe that the test as performed did much but confirm that higher directivity across a wider bandwidth is preferred in rooms having little to no early reflection control. That is evident in spades for full-range directivity control in both axes (hor, vert) like the SH-50, the K-402-MEH, and the Jubilee. Once measures are taken to recover the phase coherence of these loudspeakers, and are listened to in rooms having good early reflection control, the listening impression differences become pronounced, in my experience. I find that it's a very non-linear scale of subjective/subconscious improvement sound quality vs. directivity control + loudspeaker phase coherence + control of early in-room reflections.
Chris
Last edited:
couldnt agree more on all points
Harman "test" are flawed by the room. Floyd papers about room acoustic is also flawed by their room.
Thanks Chris for a link to your thread about the subconscious effects of low phase growth. A good read!
Even though I don't use horns (or crossovers), it has been my personal quest to find my own opinion on that subject a few years ago. It took quite a bit of work, measurements, room treatment and a dose of DSP to get me there. I've tried to describe its result many times.
I guess the best testament to its real virtues are the reviews from a few friendly listeners, most of those were from fellow forum members, I've linked to in my first post of what has become a huge thread.
Since there was some discussion over Charles Sprinkle's comments on elliptical Revel-style waveguides vs the M2 Imaging Control waveguide (due to the AVS blind test) in both this thread and the M2 thread, thought I'd link the polars of the Kali LP-6.
Its Charles' latest implementation of the elliptical waveguide. This map was generated from the CLF data that Kali supplied from independent measurements. I also generated polars for a few comparable Genelec speakers using their CLF data. Note that the measuring distances were different (8m for Kali, and 1.6m for Genelec). Red represents -5dB scale. White line represents -6dB from on-axis SPL at that frequency.
Those horizontal polars are REALLY nice. The Genelec coaxial is clearly better , but it also costs twelve(!) times as much.
I have some LP6s here, I really need to hook them up and give them a listen. I bought them and measured them, then Bill Waslo's CoSynes came up for sale and I wound up using those instead.
Here's my measurement of the LP6, and my Behringers that it replaced, which are Genelec clones:
EDIT: if you look at my measurements of the Kali LP6, you'll see a 'blip' at 1800Hz. Your horizontal measurement doesn't show this 'blip', but it IS there in the vertical measurement. That seems to beg the question "what's the optimum listening axis of the LP6?" My measurements seem to indicate that the LP6 is finicky about the vertical axis.
Last edited:
Did you guys read the pdf, and saying the JBL room is flawed?
It would be somewhat questionable for someone that they do not control the first reflection, but overall, it is a pretty reasonable room for emulating average consumer listening rooms, imo.
Olive Munich AES Presentation on Harman Reference Room - Google Slides
It would be somewhat questionable for someone that they do not control the first reflection, but overall, it is a pretty reasonable room for emulating average consumer listening rooms, imo.
Olive Munich AES Presentation on Harman Reference Room - Google Slides