DSP is great. I use a PC to control the individual drivers which works so well its basically like cheating. It can't fix all room problems though. And maybe its just laziness but dealing with two two way speakers is complicated enough. The next step would be two three ways.
Home theater has different purpose from playing music, but I'm sure there are ways to get great music from home theatre.
Home theater has different purpose from playing music, but I'm sure there are ways to get great music from home theatre.
Toole says reflections can allow us to hear more detail because the brain has more time to hear it. I think people worry too much about reflections etc. I like the idea of directionality so that it can be experimented with via extra speakers and delay. It would be nice to have as much control as possible over what hits your ears instead of being a slave to the recording and the room.
This seems to be a question without the right answer. A matter of taste, even among us hifi'sts. Supposed that we have even response with low distortion, some of us want to hear and localize all the clicks, sqweaks and tweets in a pinpoint sharp stereo panned image. Some others are after enveloping life-like and diffuse soundfield they can dive in. Most fall in-between or taste depends on the music style. My preference is low and constant directivity. A dipole system has high directivity only at more than 45¤ off-axis. Two-way with a big horn is most difficult, because directivity index rises steeply and into very high number in treble.
Room size and materials, reflectiveness, damping and modes are very important, and so is the desired listening distance and separation of LR speakers and postion of the seat (s). I agree with Linkwitz and Toole, RT60 around 0.45 sounds good and my living room is close to that. My smaller HT room is 0.2 and sounds totally different.
Multichannel recordings are rare and also of varying technical quality. Most AV receivers have Dolby ProLogic and other synthetic multichannel options that are charming first, but very sensitive to differencies of the original 2-ch source material. Most people get tired of playing with them very fast, at least for music. With videos/movies they work better, visual image helps our brains in psychoacoustics.
Room size and materials, reflectiveness, damping and modes are very important, and so is the desired listening distance and separation of LR speakers and postion of the seat (s). I agree with Linkwitz and Toole, RT60 around 0.45 sounds good and my living room is close to that. My smaller HT room is 0.2 and sounds totally different.
Multichannel recordings are rare and also of varying technical quality. Most AV receivers have Dolby ProLogic and other synthetic multichannel options that are charming first, but very sensitive to differencies of the original 2-ch source material. Most people get tired of playing with them very fast, at least for music. With videos/movies they work better, visual image helps our brains in psychoacoustics.
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
I find it interesting to see the description of how it sounds from particularly the pro-dry-beaming-party.
You guys describe your direct sound as sharp, dynamic, clear, detailed,...
And you say the other ones love bathing, enveloping, relaxed.
You may have noticed, I am pro wide-dispersion
And I feel your description of bathing opposite to sharp is as diplomatic as saying "there is good and bad taste, both is ok, i like good taste"
I will give you a description of both sides from my perspective, just as diplomatic:
1. I perceive narrow-dispersion/direct sound/dry very much as envelope. Because i hear the recording space around me, behind me, on the side. The stage is 3 dimensional. While it also comes way closer towards me. The center lead singer often screams into my face, almost spits so I close my eyes
While on the other hand, with wide dispersion, I perceive stage far away, where the speakers stand, or even behind. Not only far away from me, but also between themselves. The space between phantoms increase, they got air to breathe, easy to distinguish the separation between them. It is not much "bathing enveloping" to me, though one could think not having practical experience because the sound comes from all over. But in fact, it is far away - which is opposite of surrounding.
2. I would classify above in a very short summary: dry = i sit in the recording-environment. Which is a cool illusion. But it is artificial. Because the "i am there" is just "alike". Rather like "i am there in front of the opera entrance and hear them playing behind the door"-nasality of tone.
-vs-
wet = the artists stand in my room. Which is wrong. But it is more authentic. Coz its not alike, but so real in my room that I feel I can shake their hand (!)
3. Narrow dispersion of a full-horn-system I experienced very pleasant on bigger listening distance. But - you will be surprised - that was 10 Meters / 30 feet. And not a single meter less. My wide dispersion speakers do not change regardless of distance. I can go 10 inch close and still feel the cello is just standing right there.
4. I very much agree on the comment on "more details with longer time to hear". My experience in Multicell Horns (1803, 1505...) was acoustically very positive. While the measurements are quiet horrible.
cheers
Josh
You guys describe your direct sound as sharp, dynamic, clear, detailed,...
And you say the other ones love bathing, enveloping, relaxed.
You may have noticed, I am pro wide-dispersion
And I feel your description of bathing opposite to sharp is as diplomatic as saying "there is good and bad taste, both is ok, i like good taste"
I will give you a description of both sides from my perspective, just as diplomatic:
1. I perceive narrow-dispersion/direct sound/dry very much as envelope. Because i hear the recording space around me, behind me, on the side. The stage is 3 dimensional. While it also comes way closer towards me. The center lead singer often screams into my face, almost spits so I close my eyes
While on the other hand, with wide dispersion, I perceive stage far away, where the speakers stand, or even behind. Not only far away from me, but also between themselves. The space between phantoms increase, they got air to breathe, easy to distinguish the separation between them. It is not much "bathing enveloping" to me, though one could think not having practical experience because the sound comes from all over. But in fact, it is far away - which is opposite of surrounding.
2. I would classify above in a very short summary: dry = i sit in the recording-environment. Which is a cool illusion. But it is artificial. Because the "i am there" is just "alike". Rather like "i am there in front of the opera entrance and hear them playing behind the door"-nasality of tone.
-vs-
wet = the artists stand in my room. Which is wrong. But it is more authentic. Coz its not alike, but so real in my room that I feel I can shake their hand (!)
3. Narrow dispersion of a full-horn-system I experienced very pleasant on bigger listening distance. But - you will be surprised - that was 10 Meters / 30 feet. And not a single meter less. My wide dispersion speakers do not change regardless of distance. I can go 10 inch close and still feel the cello is just standing right there.
4. I very much agree on the comment on "more details with longer time to hear". My experience in Multicell Horns (1803, 1505...) was acoustically very positive. While the measurements are quiet horrible.
cheers
Josh
The apparent trade-off between "detail" (which I assume means a lack of the diffuseness that blurs transient information) and "envelopment" (which I assume is the auditory preference for the presence of that diffuseness) lacks one important variable, namely that of the source - or more particularly in stereo reproduction - the two or more loudspeakers. (I do not include the replay of multi-channel formats in my meandering here, given they are used mainly for effect rather than for high fidelity reproduction of an original acoustic performance. The exception is Ambisonic material which is not especially common, sadly. Nevertheless, the reproduction of well-recorded stereo can offer an auditory experience that amazes even those who understand its limitations).
My specific point relates to the information encoded in the side channel - that being the laterally orientated, dipolar "S" channel in "MS" represented material (or the difference between left and right channels in more normal stereo formats). Information encoded in S is subject to a 6dB/octave cut in low frequencies: Correcting that roll-off is the purpose of "stereo shufflers" that for some reason have fallen by the wayside (possibly due to the erroneous pursuing of maximal channel separation figures as a sales advantage). Ironically, DSP techniques now offer even more accurate shuffling than was evident many decades ago when shufflers were used.
But when the low-frequency attenuation of the S channel is corrected, envelopment is normally sufficient - even with narrow dispersion loudspeakers. The ability to increase warmth by applying 6dB/octave boost to the LF energy below 600-700Hz is also well documented - although this is separate from the compensation necessary in the S channel for accurate reproduction. Nevertheless, judgements on the merits of the contribution of diffuse room reflections is itself blurred by not taking the nature of stereo reproduction into account.
With non-acoustically, "non-coincident" recordings, there is substantially less information available that can be masked by a greater reverberation field level. Possibly extra diffuseness in this case compensates for what is missing? There also exists the possibility that a more reverberant room makes the flaws in power response of less-well engineered loudspeakers more audible. But IMHO with a well-implemented shuffler, the discussion between wide and narrow dispersion is not the issue: In a properly diffuse field, the brain is well adept at extracting the information we perceive in any case.
IMHO once again, but as many others have also commented before, the key issue with directivity is frequency balance. Whilst monotonically decreasing directivity as frequency increases appears perfectly tolerable, the greatest audible artefact arises from any "blooming" in directivity - such as is normally most evident in a typical two-way loudspeaker as the narrowing directivity of a bass/mid" driver hands over to an initially wide directivity tweeter. The increased power in the reverberant field over such a frequency band is easily identified as being an artefact of the listening room rather than from the recording. Clever, but not helpful for making cheap high performance loudspeakers.
To add further relevant comment: Narrow-angle stereo reproduction reduces additional comb-filtering in the S channel and can permit its full-band equalization; Three speaker stereo also has the nominally more important potential to remove comb filtering altogether from the M-channel - and, for example, centrally "panned" performers and their generally all-important vocals. By contrast, in normal stereo reproduction, the reverberant field is VITAL to blur these comb filtering effects. I thoroughly recommend anyone, with either access or the chance, to try listening to conventional stereo reproduction in an anechoic chamber: Once heard, it is hard to be convinced by conventional stereo again.
Regardless of the possibilities, understanding the effect of a room's reverberant field on reproduction without consideration of the significant distortions of conventional stereo reproduction only invites further blurring of the matter under consideration here.
My specific point relates to the information encoded in the side channel - that being the laterally orientated, dipolar "S" channel in "MS" represented material (or the difference between left and right channels in more normal stereo formats). Information encoded in S is subject to a 6dB/octave cut in low frequencies: Correcting that roll-off is the purpose of "stereo shufflers" that for some reason have fallen by the wayside (possibly due to the erroneous pursuing of maximal channel separation figures as a sales advantage). Ironically, DSP techniques now offer even more accurate shuffling than was evident many decades ago when shufflers were used.
But when the low-frequency attenuation of the S channel is corrected, envelopment is normally sufficient - even with narrow dispersion loudspeakers. The ability to increase warmth by applying 6dB/octave boost to the LF energy below 600-700Hz is also well documented - although this is separate from the compensation necessary in the S channel for accurate reproduction. Nevertheless, judgements on the merits of the contribution of diffuse room reflections is itself blurred by not taking the nature of stereo reproduction into account.
With non-acoustically, "non-coincident" recordings, there is substantially less information available that can be masked by a greater reverberation field level. Possibly extra diffuseness in this case compensates for what is missing? There also exists the possibility that a more reverberant room makes the flaws in power response of less-well engineered loudspeakers more audible. But IMHO with a well-implemented shuffler, the discussion between wide and narrow dispersion is not the issue: In a properly diffuse field, the brain is well adept at extracting the information we perceive in any case.
IMHO once again, but as many others have also commented before, the key issue with directivity is frequency balance. Whilst monotonically decreasing directivity as frequency increases appears perfectly tolerable, the greatest audible artefact arises from any "blooming" in directivity - such as is normally most evident in a typical two-way loudspeaker as the narrowing directivity of a bass/mid" driver hands over to an initially wide directivity tweeter. The increased power in the reverberant field over such a frequency band is easily identified as being an artefact of the listening room rather than from the recording. Clever, but not helpful for making cheap high performance loudspeakers.
To add further relevant comment: Narrow-angle stereo reproduction reduces additional comb-filtering in the S channel and can permit its full-band equalization; Three speaker stereo also has the nominally more important potential to remove comb filtering altogether from the M-channel - and, for example, centrally "panned" performers and their generally all-important vocals. By contrast, in normal stereo reproduction, the reverberant field is VITAL to blur these comb filtering effects. I thoroughly recommend anyone, with either access or the chance, to try listening to conventional stereo reproduction in an anechoic chamber: Once heard, it is hard to be convinced by conventional stereo again.
Regardless of the possibilities, understanding the effect of a room's reverberant field on reproduction without consideration of the significant distortions of conventional stereo reproduction only invites further blurring of the matter under consideration here.
Last edited:
Here is a quite similar topic of discussion, with Dr. Floyd Toole
Evidence-based Speaker Designs | Page 8 | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum
Evidence-based Speaker Designs | Page 8 | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum
Not sure that post was aimed at my post (?), but it is interesting since its conclusions appear to be the opposite of my own - the interesting bit being that both conclusions are valid in their own particular context. It is also worth noting that the distinction between early and late reflections in the study of "envelopment" is not trivial when discussing stereo shuffling, since late (originally) lateral reflections in the recording may become significantly more audible; They are also different from the (likely earlier) lateral reflections in a listening room that can serve to mask the recorded lateral information: It is not an easy issue to explain, let alone resolve!
I studied the work of Toole et al many years ago, and they are certainly to be congratulated for the competency evident in their studies. Anyone who has attempted a scientific study of the loudspeaker-room-listener interface will be quickly overwhelmed by the numbers of variables involved, however. A number of assumptions are therefore required to make useful headway. My post raises an issue that was omitted for consideration by Floyd et al - at least as far as I am aware (please correct me if I am wrong). If I am correct, then this is not an error on their part, but I suspect an effort to reduce their study to something more amenable to the specific task with which they were charged - which would likely be limited to conventional stereo reproduction complete with its inherent flaws.
Contrary to the assertions of Floyd in the post linked above, I do not believe it is possible to group all multi-channel formats together as having "superior performance" and I do not find that multi-channel performance is necessarily superior to stereo reproduction if the stereo system is implemented as I described previously. It is purely my conjecture, but I suspect Floyd's comments were not based on such an "unconventional" stereo system. As Floyd states, multi-channel systems do have their inherent advantages, but likewise the advantages can also help mask engineering compromises and oversights as my previous post states. The reason for that original post was to highlight the number of variables that make definitive systems difficult in this field of study - and particularly to highlight one variable that is frequently overlooked.
In what way horrible? I've had a lot of good experiences with multi-cell horns and have never made horrible measurements.
I've found that more directional speakers are better with surround sound. The bose cube type full range drivers work well when a lot of them are placed around the room, better than they do using two in stereo.
You get more of a "soundscape" effect from directional speakers, and a lot of full rangers are more directional, along with horns.
You get more of a "soundscape" effect from directional speakers, and a lot of full rangers are more directional, along with horns.
Hi Pano
Acoustically I also adore multicell, seriously obsessed about them.
But the measures... I can share one quickly which is just few days old:
BMS 4540ND tweeter, in 3 different Horns, same condition, 10dB offset, 1 foot distance, on a stand. In order top-bottom:
1. StereoLab Tractrix SL1000 (spherical)
2. 18sound XR1064 (squared)
3. MarkusKlug MK1525 (8 inch Multicell for tweeter)
Notice this is unsmoothened, Gate 1400ms Blackman.
With the slightest smoothing of 48th Oct or even short gates all peaks vanish completely! Also not possible to hear.
May I ask you to share your measures? I would really love to see others experience.
cheers
Josh
PS: @33polkhigh, totally agree!
Acoustically I also adore multicell, seriously obsessed about them.
But the measures... I can share one quickly which is just few days old:
BMS 4540ND tweeter, in 3 different Horns, same condition, 10dB offset, 1 foot distance, on a stand. In order top-bottom:
1. StereoLab Tractrix SL1000 (spherical)
2. 18sound XR1064 (squared)
3. MarkusKlug MK1525 (8 inch Multicell for tweeter)
Notice this is unsmoothened, Gate 1400ms Blackman.
With the slightest smoothing of 48th Oct or even short gates all peaks vanish completely! Also not possible to hear.
May I ask you to share your measures? I would really love to see others experience.
cheers
Josh
PS: @33polkhigh, totally agree!
Attachments
Re: Controlled vs wide dispersion in a normal living room environment..
I tried that experiment:
KEF LS50 (David) Versus JBL 4722 Cinema (Goliath) Speaker Comparison with Binaural Recordings
You can really hear the difference between the two, even though they are eq'd more or less the same. The difference may be enough to determine ones preference...
I tried that experiment:
KEF LS50 (David) Versus JBL 4722 Cinema (Goliath) Speaker Comparison with Binaural Recordings
You can really hear the difference between the two, even though they are eq'd more or less the same. The difference may be enough to determine ones preference...
That is awesome information.
Thanks for sharing.
Edit: As a follow up experiment, you can start with a dry recording then add artificial reverb and try to find out at what level the reverb sounds optimal. And if that differs with changing di.
Last edited:
Mitch's statement from the link:
"I spent quite a few years in pro sound and recording studio control rooms. The former used pattern controlled speakers and the latter was in rooms that were pretty absorbent. I got used to liking more direct sound than diffuse sound. If I was a classical music lover and frequented concert halls, likely my preference would be reversed."
My friend had huge diy synergy horns and they were almost like wearing heaphones. Not my cup of tea. Yes, a matter of opinion and preference. Room reflectiveness and shape are also very important.
To Kal, yes there are many classical multichannel releases, but 99,999% or more of new pop/rock is still 2ch. Most young people listen to headphones today, I bet it is wise to optimize for that. And add to that the history of stereophonic releases since late 60's. I guess that I have 2-3 live DVDs with genuine multichannel recording, not just postproduction dsp mixes and yes they sound very good in my HT.
Multichannel and Surround DSD Listening | NativeDSD Help Center
This article was published ten years ago!
Whatever happened to 5.1-channel music? | Stereophile.com
Multichannel Music Formats
The UK Recorded Music Market in a Long-Term Perspective, 1975-2016 | Music Business Research
"I spent quite a few years in pro sound and recording studio control rooms. The former used pattern controlled speakers and the latter was in rooms that were pretty absorbent. I got used to liking more direct sound than diffuse sound. If I was a classical music lover and frequented concert halls, likely my preference would be reversed."
My friend had huge diy synergy horns and they were almost like wearing heaphones. Not my cup of tea. Yes, a matter of opinion and preference. Room reflectiveness and shape are also very important.
To Kal, yes there are many classical multichannel releases, but 99,999% or more of new pop/rock is still 2ch. Most young people listen to headphones today, I bet it is wise to optimize for that. And add to that the history of stereophonic releases since late 60's. I guess that I have 2-3 live DVDs with genuine multichannel recording, not just postproduction dsp mixes and yes they sound very good in my HT.
Multichannel and Surround DSD Listening | NativeDSD Help Center
This article was published ten years ago!
Whatever happened to 5.1-channel music? | Stereophile.com
Multichannel Music Formats
The UK Recorded Music Market in a Long-Term Perspective, 1975-2016 | Music Business Research
Last edited:
Something Toole wrote on the subject, Room Reflections & Human Adaptation for Small Room Acoustics | Audioholics
He seems to go back to the direct vs reflected sound needing to match, which doesn't really imply that there is an ideal amount of directivity.
He seems to go back to the direct vs reflected sound needing to match, which doesn't really imply that there is an ideal amount of directivity.
Mitch
I would completely agree with you on this. The expectation differences for in-venue classical music versus studio work usually gets lost in these discussions and yet it may well be the major consideration. It is impossible to determine the validity of what someone is saying unless they are clear on what it is they are expecting. Toole, for example, only listens to classical music, I pretty much only listen to studio work. Our different positions on directivity stem directly from this musical preference difference.
I would completely agree with you on this. The expectation differences for in-venue classical music versus studio work usually gets lost in these discussions and yet it may well be the major consideration. It is impossible to determine the validity of what someone is saying unless they are clear on what it is they are expecting. Toole, for example, only listens to classical music, I pretty much only listen to studio work. Our different positions on directivity stem directly from this musical preference difference.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.