Slightly OT, but over the last ca 25 years, stereo panning has advanced a lot from simple volume shifts. Some of the theoretical groundwork was actually laid by the late Michael Gerzon of Ambisonics fame, and incorporated into early Waves plugins. Most audio software packages nowadays come with pretty decent psycho-acoustic panners.
Many ways to skin a cat. A good Blumlein recording is fantastically enjoyable, as are the UHJ-formatted CDs from Nimbus. But the cleverly manufactured artificial ambience on studio productions can be rather enveloping too, although the effect is very different.
IME, minimised edge diffraction and smooth off-axis FR help with the spatial enjoyment of all types of (good) recordings.
Many ways to skin a cat. A good Blumlein recording is fantastically enjoyable, as are the UHJ-formatted CDs from Nimbus. But the cleverly manufactured artificial ambience on studio productions can be rather enveloping too, although the effect is very different.
IME, minimised edge diffraction and smooth off-axis FR help with the spatial enjoyment of all types of (good) recordings.
Yes, but skilled mic placement can significantly reduce that.
+1
I'm forever amazed and delighted at the spacial info that's in recordings. And indeed it can be very different from recording to recording, but that's half the fun. 
Back on topic, I've heard both wide and narrow baffles do great space so it seems to me that both can. But I've heard more wide do it than narrow.
We all have our preferences for how much directivity we like in our system. I believe this stems from how sensitive we are to early reflections. Some of us are very sensitive, and we need just a small amount to satisfy us, and too much is, well, too much! ... others need a lot of early reflections to create a satisfying sense of space. The amount of reflections which I need to create a sense of space might be way too much for another listener. For some of us, a pair of KEF LS50s combined with a pair of good subs is going to sound quite nice... for others a pair of JBL M2s or GedLee Sumas is going to sound quite nice...
This is from page 259, Floyd Toole, "Sound Reproduction - Loudspeakers and Rooms".
This is from page 259, Floyd Toole, "Sound Reproduction - Loudspeakers and Rooms".
Attachments
Last edited:
I thought this was an excellent well balanced read by Toole:
Room Reflections & Human Adaptation for Small Room Acoustics | Audioholics
Some quotes that for me sum it up for me, having DIY synergies with fairly narrow directivity, DIY classic three-ways with broad uniform directivity, and some DIY waveguided 4-ways with something in between the two..... (but all well controlled uniform directivity):
"By now I hope that readers have concluded that the matter of early reflections in rooms is not a simple one. There is no single “right” way to do things. About 37 years ago, when I was setting up the NRC listening room, I ran a drapery track down the front portion of the side walls and across the wall of the room behind the loudspeakers, hanging 4-foot sections of densely-folded heavy drapes. The track was about 6 inches from the wall for good broadband absorption. These could be moved around, and in the case of the sidewall reflections, we quickly found that things sounded better if they were pushed back for more "spacious" classical music, and pulled out for "in your face" rock/pop stuff. I knew a couple of stereo enthusiasts who copied the idea at home. I concluded that, in terms of loudspeaker/room combinations, one size does not fit all."
"My own investigation of the importance of loudspeaker directivity as revealed by the energy in lateral wall reflections (Toole, JAES 1985 and section 8.2.1 in my book) examined details of stereo soundstage and sound quality. The principal conclusion was that the recording technique is likely to be the prime determinant of directional and spatial impressions in stereo listening. "
"Choisel (2005, PhD Thesis, U. of Aalborg) interrogated stereo listeners on precision of sound image location when sounds were delivered by a very-wide, 180°, dispersion loudspeaker (B&O Beolab 5) or a normal, narrower-dispersion loudspeaker (B & W 801N), when side walls were reflecting or absorbing. The conclusion was that the perceived directions of images were unchanged by any of the manipulations, even though they resulted in large measured changes in reflected energy."
For me - I prefer my 4 way waveguided speakers - I find the synergies incredibly clear and direct, but lack spaciousness - 'headphones in front', and I find the classic 3-ways not resolving enough - too much reflection resulting in less detail and resolution.
All are excellent speakers and are suited to some recordings more than others....
Room Reflections & Human Adaptation for Small Room Acoustics | Audioholics
Some quotes that for me sum it up for me, having DIY synergies with fairly narrow directivity, DIY classic three-ways with broad uniform directivity, and some DIY waveguided 4-ways with something in between the two..... (but all well controlled uniform directivity):
"By now I hope that readers have concluded that the matter of early reflections in rooms is not a simple one. There is no single “right” way to do things. About 37 years ago, when I was setting up the NRC listening room, I ran a drapery track down the front portion of the side walls and across the wall of the room behind the loudspeakers, hanging 4-foot sections of densely-folded heavy drapes. The track was about 6 inches from the wall for good broadband absorption. These could be moved around, and in the case of the sidewall reflections, we quickly found that things sounded better if they were pushed back for more "spacious" classical music, and pulled out for "in your face" rock/pop stuff. I knew a couple of stereo enthusiasts who copied the idea at home. I concluded that, in terms of loudspeaker/room combinations, one size does not fit all."
"My own investigation of the importance of loudspeaker directivity as revealed by the energy in lateral wall reflections (Toole, JAES 1985 and section 8.2.1 in my book) examined details of stereo soundstage and sound quality. The principal conclusion was that the recording technique is likely to be the prime determinant of directional and spatial impressions in stereo listening. "
"Choisel (2005, PhD Thesis, U. of Aalborg) interrogated stereo listeners on precision of sound image location when sounds were delivered by a very-wide, 180°, dispersion loudspeaker (B&O Beolab 5) or a normal, narrower-dispersion loudspeaker (B & W 801N), when side walls were reflecting or absorbing. The conclusion was that the perceived directions of images were unchanged by any of the manipulations, even though they resulted in large measured changes in reflected energy."
For me - I prefer my 4 way waveguided speakers - I find the synergies incredibly clear and direct, but lack spaciousness - 'headphones in front', and I find the classic 3-ways not resolving enough - too much reflection resulting in less detail and resolution.
All are excellent speakers and are suited to some recordings more than others....
There are even recordings where one has the feeling that one can perceive different spaces at the same time. One exaple where I have this impression is the tune "Don't let it show" on Alan Parsons' album "I Robot". The singer and the organ at the beginning are in different "spaces" at the same time. I do at least have this impression. But maybe I am completely wrong ......
As to baffle width and imaging: I am of the opinion that they have to be really wide or very narrow to have good imaging. Worst baffle width is a medium one where the temporal smear by edge diffraction is such that it is about the same as the interaural delay. That means a baffle width which is twice the width of an average human head would be worst if no measures against diffraction were taken.
Regards
Charles
The 104 Mk2 had twin 8s in a push-push arrangement. It was the 1st comemrcial example i know of, but the technique was known to me before that.
KEF - Reference Series Model 104/2 (1984-96) - United States
dave
On the subject of early reflections, I had been curious for a quite while what triggered the differences in opinion on that subject between Dr. Geddes and Toole.
So I sort of asked Dr. Geddes the following question (he was following and contributing to that particular thread):
His reply:
This seems to fit in perfectly with the quotes from bushmeister a little earlier in this thread.
As most of my preferred music is of studio origins I had already followed the advise of Dr. Geddes in my own personal quest.
I've absorbed early reflections and created a later (virtual add-on) Haas kicker to give me back some of that absorbed energy. This gives me great imaging while being able to 'control' the timing, content and amount of reflected energy up to a point.
The main difference between that, and my earlier in-room results while still having more early reflections is that the presented space changes with the songs played with the Haas kicker/absorbed reflections setup. The fixed reflections in my room kind of added 'the same sauce' to everything.
However, before adding the Haas kicker I did miss some of the thrill when playing large orchestral music pieces. The Haas kicker add-on solved that problem/dilemma for me (and then some).
In my view a setup like this works on the (vast) majority of the stuff I (like to) play, you don't have to be a fool when chasing imaging. Much like Pano, I actually love imaging and it would come in second place after tonality for me! With the right room/speaker combination it can be made to work wonders.
Good quality tonality, imaging and spaciousness can all be had (at the same time) this way.
Done with a narrow (rounded) baffle in my case (narrow but huge) to bring it back on topic.
So I sort of asked Dr. Geddes the following question (he was following and contributing to that particular thread):
wesayso said:
His reply:
gedlee said:
This seems to fit in perfectly with the quotes from bushmeister a little earlier in this thread.
As most of my preferred music is of studio origins I had already followed the advise of Dr. Geddes in my own personal quest.
I've absorbed early reflections and created a later (virtual add-on) Haas kicker to give me back some of that absorbed energy. This gives me great imaging while being able to 'control' the timing, content and amount of reflected energy up to a point.
The main difference between that, and my earlier in-room results while still having more early reflections is that the presented space changes with the songs played with the Haas kicker/absorbed reflections setup. The fixed reflections in my room kind of added 'the same sauce' to everything.
However, before adding the Haas kicker I did miss some of the thrill when playing large orchestral music pieces. The Haas kicker add-on solved that problem/dilemma for me (and then some).
In my view a setup like this works on the (vast) majority of the stuff I (like to) play, you don't have to be a fool when chasing imaging
. Much like Pano, I actually love imaging and it would come in second place after tonality for me! With the right room/speaker combination it can be made to work wonders.Good quality tonality, imaging and spaciousness can all be had (at the same time) this way.
Done with a narrow (rounded) baffle in my case (narrow but huge) to bring it back on topic
.
Last edited:
Reading that book right now - but have not reached so far
Though - I must say, that my room had great benefits going for a more controlled dispersion - wide or narrow. Other rooms might be different.... but rarely have I been in a room, that was not affecting sounds - all sorts of sounds.
When referring to "space" in a listening room. Should we not talk about how much these reflections from speakers are delayed?
As far as I get Geddes - on the subject. Reflections are not that bad - as long as they are delayed min. 10-15ms. This is why he goes for a narrow dispersion and toes the speakers in a lot, so that you get a bigger sweetspot but less early reflections in the horisontal plane.
It sounds like you are approaching reflections strictly from the perspective of imaging. However, here are some benefits of early reflections Toole summarized:
I think it's important for DIYers to understand the tradeoffs. Especially when Toole says the part I placed in bold.
Also, I want to be clear I'm not trying to dissuade you from experimenting or designing speakers to overcome these tradeoffs. That's not why I'm saying any of this. I'm saying it so people don't think, "People say good speakers image well, therefore, I must have speakers that image well."
The context of that might be not bad with regard to imaging.
Reflections -- lateral and early -- are generally good for reasons other than imaging.
Why do people do this? Is it so hard to discuss the research with an understanding that it is generally applicable and not universally applicable.
The opening paragraphs of 7.1 in Toole's Third edition book (that you referred to be before) has added a few disclaimers and warnings due to misinterpretations of those research findings. Toole's book now aligns more closely with the quote from Geddes wesayso posted above.
If you look through all the research on blind listening studies the greatest confounding factor is always the program material that was used to conduct the test. So while the results are valid for the music that was used to conduct them it is not always completely transferrable to other types of program material and goes a long way to understand why the results can be valid but other people still come to their own different conclusions based on what they listened to.
A few years ago I couldn't care less about imaging and often found it to be distracting and annoying. In my most recent system I have reduced the early reflections significantly and changed the positioning of the speakers. I can now hear some very precise positioning within and beyond the bounds of the speakers and I must say that I have been converted to the point that I listen to some tracks just because of the amazing imaging. I can now see why some people are so fanatical about it.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.