To begin with, there exists to date no complete system architecture (air capture -> air reproduction) that has as an ambition to enable perfect recreation of a real music event as it was originally experienced by a person in the room. And can theoretically prove it. Stereo - pfft... "Dolby" (any) - nope... Kunstkopfstereo via headphones migth be the closest both theoretically and practically but lacks the tactile feedback. It has at least the correct basic "capt/reprod symmetry" to stand a chance.
If listening to a studio and/or multi mic / bass-straight-into mixer/ type recording, all aspects of "correct" is immediately down the drain as there is no define source aka. "truth". The only reproduction that could claim to be correct is a reproduction of a live event in an acoustical environment. Typically this would be a band or an orchestra byt just to make the point, a single 2" speaker playing "Disco Duck" from a 33kbps .mp3 would qualify as long as it was captured in a room and at least one person could experience the event.
So what remains then? Basically "good/nice sound". To talk about perfect signal reproduction and perhaps "clarity" is OK as a technical challenge but has nothing to do with high fidelity music event reproduction - be it multi-mic studio recording or else...
All we do here at diyaudio.com is talking about nice sound. Not correct - forget that! Many even thinks less correct is nicer - go figure....
This will not change until we see a completely new standard that involves recording as well as reproduction (in normal living rooms) with some very interesting technical requirement on how to very the fidelity. I hope to live to hear it - but I will not hold my breath....
//
Btw - I find the ST260 still to narrow after have lived with a pair for a year. Can it be made to still be CD but wider?
If listening to a studio and/or multi mic / bass-straight-into mixer/ type recording, all aspects of "correct" is immediately down the drain as there is no define source aka. "truth". The only reproduction that could claim to be correct is a reproduction of a live event in an acoustical environment. Typically this would be a band or an orchestra byt just to make the point, a single 2" speaker playing "Disco Duck" from a 33kbps .mp3 would qualify as long as it was captured in a room and at least one person could experience the event.
So what remains then? Basically "good/nice sound". To talk about perfect signal reproduction and perhaps "clarity" is OK as a technical challenge but has nothing to do with high fidelity music event reproduction - be it multi-mic studio recording or else...
All we do here at diyaudio.com is talking about nice sound. Not correct - forget that! Many even thinks less correct is nicer - go figure....
This will not change until we see a completely new standard that involves recording as well as reproduction (in normal living rooms) with some very interesting technical requirement on how to very the fidelity. I hope to live to hear it - but I will not hold my breath....
//
Btw - I find the ST260 still to narrow after have lived with a pair for a year. Can it be made to still be CD but wider?
TNT, if you want wider I suspect your listening triangle is too big, you listen "too far"? 
Nothing wrong with that, many people seem to prefer this, no toe in and all that.
Have you experimented with listening distance? if not I suggest take one day and try to find the transition point. You would then be sure which one you prefer and how to improve the system.
If it turns out you like the close enough sound better, which can have very big sound, then cure might be further narrow the response instead, if you must have far listening distance.
If the far distance is nice then optimize smooth DI, toe out to get wide stage, you might be better without much waveguide at all.
Just some thoughts
Nothing wrong with that, many people seem to prefer this, no toe in and all that. Have you experimented with listening distance? if not I suggest take one day and try to find the transition point. You would then be sure which one you prefer and how to improve the system.
If it turns out you like the close enough sound better, which can have very big sound, then cure might be further narrow the response instead, if you must have far listening distance.
If the far distance is nice then optimize smooth DI, toe out to get wide stage, you might be better without much waveguide at all.
Just some thoughts
There was no mention of a soundstage. Only that the WG is too narrow = too high DI. I just wonder how one comes to this conclusion, as it not at all easy to judge on the beamwidth without actual measurements of the system. Then I would understand it can be too narrow (as a match for the rest).
high fidelity
noun
: the reproduction of an effect (such as sound or an image) that is very faithful to the original
For me, the original is referring to the original electrical signal
Any deviation from this, is distortion, yet naturally, distortion occurs most of the time, particularly but not exclusively, in rooms, so commonly that its naturally expected.
The lessening of these distortions increase your ability to perceive details in the signal. The most extreme scenario, an Anechoic chamber, is proof. A small room will never resemble this... but increasing DI will bring one closer by lowering room energy, to the listener...
Where a person chooses to be on this sliding scale, is preference but the effect of lowering room sound levels can be seen in simple measurements
Last edited:
When you don't have correlation between measurement and hearing, that argument is moot. Currently we have to rely on the equivalent to the Turing test - if one is blindfolded and cant determine if you are at the Royal Albert Hall or in front of your reproduction system at home - you are on to something. If you play Björk and think it sounds very clear it is not what I'm talking about. At all.
Here is where you went wrong: "For me, the original is referring to the original electrical signal"...
//
Here is where you went wrong: "For me, the original is referring to the original electrical signal"...
//
I have made quite some changes to the filters since you commented on them. I dont see anechoic nearfield measuremnts as necessarily someting important for X-overs. It is the net result at listening position that is important.
When I move say a meter or two from the sweet spot, playing one speaker, I hear the loss of HF. If this had been a real sound source, I had not experience that. So fidelity is compromised. I also find the soundstage size limited with a loge characteristic, typical issue of limited/beaming dispersion speakers in my experience. ST260 is a beamy speaker to me.
But I'm actually an omni type speaker person as the most illusionary reproduction of an orchestra I have heard did come out of such type speakers. But I like some treats of the horn, like resolution and dynamics - primarily dynamics perhaps...
//
Last edited:
It is like you are sitting in one of these boxes that fit 4 or 6 person on the opera. You sit and hear everything very detailed and proportionally well laid out - its just that it is like a doll house. You see a very nice replica of a real house with details and all but it is only 1 meter large and te frame where the music takes place is very obvious. Thats the best analogy I can give. Within this limited and clear frame, I also hear a very good reproduction of the acoustics of the hall so that interesting and nice but still I'm restrained by the size of "doll house" to really "be there".
This is for most recordings but I have had a few that was different.
//
This is for most recordings but I have had a few that was different.
//
Nice, quite similar as mine, practical situation, sofa, rug, tv. Can't be to close to the tv.
For such long listening distance, where distance from ear to speaker is ~3m, narrower coverage would possibly get the D/R ratio enough up to extend the good sound to sofa. Unfortunately distance between speakers is kind of limited to the fireplace? and you just cannot get optimal sound this way I think. For optimal sound its roughly equilateral triangle, wide, but not too wide to have hole in the center
Well, I'm on task to try and extend the distance to sofa, from 2.2m to perhaps 2.8m. I do not know how narrow coverage would need to be and at what frequency? Griesinger points out that ~1kHz region. Perhaps acoustic treatment is necessary.
I experience something similar with the 90 x 45 degree JBL waveguide which is not beaming:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_COvnfAy4R9w/TTQ07Dt1l5I/AAAAAAAAFt8/_I0vDhAPwH4/s1600/s15dsp+normalised.png
http://gainphile.blogspot.com/2010/11/s15-econowave-dsp.html
I have not experienced the same miniature perception with baffle-mounted tweeter, wide pattern speakers. But they sounded diffuse. Some expressed their subjective impression of the JBL M2 creating a wide soundstage. Its horizontal radiation is 120 degree in the important mid-highs.
Hi, yeah, either you need to be close and have about equilateral triangle for big image, or if you are at far you could have the speakers close together like you have now, closer than listening distance, but as you surmise you'd need to have wide coverage speakers and splash the side walls. This would create phantom center between speaker and wall. I think this is what many people strive for looking at pictures. But, to me this is inferior, the sound is huge but undefined. It is similarly huge with the close distance, with clarity and all that.
Poor sound at side can be helped with time intensity trading. Have speakers heavily toed in ~45 deg angle. Now, at least with my cardioid mids, listening at side the closer speaker seems mute and sound is vlear due to highs from the opposing speaker, phantom center more or less between the speakers still. Again this needs about equilateral listening triangle to work for the main listening position. With wide coverage speakers the sound collapses to the nearest speaker.
Unfortunately your listening spot seems restricted (by reality), and perhaps omni speakers would work best. Clarity would happen only at very close listening distance, like now, but some other aspects that seem more important.
Power in all this is that you now know what the situation is and tailor the system towards better sound
well, I do not know what the situation is but hopefully you do. I think finding the transition is very powerfull tool for this, you now know what is possible and what is not, what you like and so on
I know its not optimal and would like to hear these sitting on a wall without stands with quite some distance to side walls and in general a bigger like side triangle. I use actually a projector that sits under the table so no TV.
//