Comparison due to performance of loudspeakers having different radiation patterns
and also gross directivity is hard to do intersubjectively even under controled conditions.
I may give an example from personal experience:
My Dipol 08 line array is a fairly directional speaker, while my fullrange bending wave
'Model 2' is close to omni at HF, which are nearly the two ends of the scale.
When i finished the line array and people came in, some of them intuitively walked
some meters backwards and said something like "nice, can it go even louder ?"
The speaker is well balanced and homogeneous at closer distance too, but i think the
reason for that reaction was the listener trying to get "his" preferred direct/reflected
ratio, which is found at a larger than usual distance with a noteably directional speaker.
I did not observe that kind of reaction with the more omni like speaker. Listeners walk
around checking "uniformity" of reproduction at several places, but usually are
statisfied to get back to the closer listening seat for listening more concentrated.
__________________
If you force listeners to a certain seat to judge the performance of speakers having
different "gross" directivity, the answer you get is presumably much influenced by
the question: "Does the direct/reflected ratio meet the listener's preference".
But when we assume a given listener to prefer a certain ratio, which often may be
found within the critical distance of the speaker/room system under question,
i have to allow the listener to change the seat in order to accomodate to that
particular speaker.
Otherwise he will judge the seat with respect to the speaker, which is not the same
as judging the speaker.
Next problem is presenting speakers which deviate in radiation pattern from the
majority of speakers presented in a test. The training effect together with the
fixed seat will pull the judgement towards the majority, i would at least expect.
Speakers having noteably lower or higher DI than a majority of "usual" ones are
expected to get lower rankings under such an experimental setting.
When choosing a seat not too far from the critical distance in a given
"speaker/room system", that often means reverberant portion on the recording and
listening room reverberant portion together contributing larger than the direct
sound on the recording.
That seems to be a "common" preference, which in classical music genre comes close
to d/r ratios experienced even at "the better" seats of a concert hall.
Of course, the acoustic small room lacks diffusivity, but the common listener
seems to make use of what he is offered, ...
and also gross directivity is hard to do intersubjectively even under controled conditions.
I may give an example from personal experience:
My Dipol 08 line array is a fairly directional speaker, while my fullrange bending wave
'Model 2' is close to omni at HF, which are nearly the two ends of the scale.
When i finished the line array and people came in, some of them intuitively walked
some meters backwards and said something like "nice, can it go even louder ?"
The speaker is well balanced and homogeneous at closer distance too, but i think the
reason for that reaction was the listener trying to get "his" preferred direct/reflected
ratio, which is found at a larger than usual distance with a noteably directional speaker.
I did not observe that kind of reaction with the more omni like speaker. Listeners walk
around checking "uniformity" of reproduction at several places, but usually are
statisfied to get back to the closer listening seat for listening more concentrated.
__________________
If you force listeners to a certain seat to judge the performance of speakers having
different "gross" directivity, the answer you get is presumably much influenced by
the question: "Does the direct/reflected ratio meet the listener's preference".
But when we assume a given listener to prefer a certain ratio, which often may be
found within the critical distance of the speaker/room system under question,
i have to allow the listener to change the seat in order to accomodate to that
particular speaker.
Otherwise he will judge the seat with respect to the speaker, which is not the same
as judging the speaker.
Next problem is presenting speakers which deviate in radiation pattern from the
majority of speakers presented in a test. The training effect together with the
fixed seat will pull the judgement towards the majority, i would at least expect.
Speakers having noteably lower or higher DI than a majority of "usual" ones are
expected to get lower rankings under such an experimental setting.
When choosing a seat not too far from the critical distance in a given
"speaker/room system", that often means reverberant portion on the recording and
listening room reverberant portion together contributing larger than the direct
sound on the recording.
That seems to be a "common" preference, which in classical music genre comes close
to d/r ratios experienced even at "the better" seats of a concert hall.
Of course, the acoustic small room lacks diffusivity, but the common listener
seems to make use of what he is offered, ...
From
Moulton Laboratories :: The loudspeaker as musical instrument
page 9:
"First, all traditional instruments generate complex waveforms with extensive overtone structures. As a
general rule, the frequency range for the fundamental frequencies of musical notes spans four octaves, from
65 to 1040 Hz. (low C to high C), while overtones extend up to five octaves above that range.
Loudspeakers, on the other hand, do not generate overtones as such, except when driven into distortion.
Second, the directivity of acoustical instruments varies widely at both high and low frequencies. There is
no uniformity, and no particular trend. In a collective sense, we can generalize that high frequencies are
radiated laterally and upward, occasionally forward, while low frequency radiation tends to be either
bidirectional or somewhat directional as a function of horn coupling with free space. It needs also to be
noted that the timbral results of such directivity is also affected by the comparatively large size of
performance venues – the strident harshness of a violin in a small practice room, with extremely strong
high frequency early reflections off a low ceiling is in marked contrast to the warmth of the same
instrument in a concert hall, with the attenuated vertical high frequency radiation lending a silky
reverberant patina to the sound.
In contrast, traditional loudspeakers have a comparatively distinctive pattern of directivity, as noted above,
a pattern generally unlike almost all acoustical instruments. While low and mid frequencies are radiated
approximately omnidirectionally, high frequencies are beamed narrowly, so narrowly that for the most part
a listener cannot sit more than 15° off-axis and still perceive the spectrum the designer intended. The
result of this is a particular interaction with rooms that sounds quite unlike other instruments.
It is therefore quite important to note that no other instrument requires such a precise orientation by the
listener as does the loudspeaker, simply in order to take in the spectral range of the loudspeaker. Also, as
noted earlier, the volley of early reflections are spectrally deficient vis-à-vis the on-axis radiation. This has
led to compensations, in many instances, during the act of recording and production. By tradition, many
recordings are overly bright to fill in for this spectral deficiency and to compensate for off-axis listening."
Moulton Laboratories :: The loudspeaker as musical instrument
page 9:
"First, all traditional instruments generate complex waveforms with extensive overtone structures. As a
general rule, the frequency range for the fundamental frequencies of musical notes spans four octaves, from
65 to 1040 Hz. (low C to high C), while overtones extend up to five octaves above that range.
Loudspeakers, on the other hand, do not generate overtones as such, except when driven into distortion.
Second, the directivity of acoustical instruments varies widely at both high and low frequencies. There is
no uniformity, and no particular trend. In a collective sense, we can generalize that high frequencies are
radiated laterally and upward, occasionally forward, while low frequency radiation tends to be either
bidirectional or somewhat directional as a function of horn coupling with free space. It needs also to be
noted that the timbral results of such directivity is also affected by the comparatively large size of
performance venues – the strident harshness of a violin in a small practice room, with extremely strong
high frequency early reflections off a low ceiling is in marked contrast to the warmth of the same
instrument in a concert hall, with the attenuated vertical high frequency radiation lending a silky
reverberant patina to the sound.
In contrast, traditional loudspeakers have a comparatively distinctive pattern of directivity, as noted above,
a pattern generally unlike almost all acoustical instruments. While low and mid frequencies are radiated
approximately omnidirectionally, high frequencies are beamed narrowly, so narrowly that for the most part
a listener cannot sit more than 15° off-axis and still perceive the spectrum the designer intended. The
result of this is a particular interaction with rooms that sounds quite unlike other instruments.
It is therefore quite important to note that no other instrument requires such a precise orientation by the
listener as does the loudspeaker, simply in order to take in the spectral range of the loudspeaker. Also, as
noted earlier, the volley of early reflections are spectrally deficient vis-à-vis the on-axis radiation. This has
led to compensations, in many instances, during the act of recording and production. By tradition, many
recordings are overly bright to fill in for this spectral deficiency and to compensate for off-axis listening."
@ LineArray.
Permit me to present the experience and observations of our small group as regards a couple of points that you have touched on.
A wide-dispersion speaker is preferred over a narrow-beaming one by most of the listeners, irrespective of their listening background or experience, or their 'knowledge' of sound and fidelity. In other words, 'golden ears' or 'tin ears', the preference was for wide-dispersion speakers, and once that was experienced, it was difficult to go back to the more 'accurate' 'beamers'. In order to test this aspect, the wide-dispersion drivers were limited in frequency response (about 180 Hz to just around 10 kHz), and still the subjective preference was overwhelmingly in favour of the wide-dispersion setup, despite the better tonality, fuller FR and other subtleties of the 'beamers'.
The ear/brain combo instinctively shifts towards this as such a presentation perhaps comes nearest to a "live-like" situation in reproduction. More often we go after 'accuracy' instead of aiming for "as near to live/real as possible", because our logic tells us that is 'correct'. But the ear/brain prefers to vote the other way, it appears. Perhaps this also is the reason why many listeners are able to elicit more enjoyment from recordings done in the past using simple microphone arrangements than the more modern highly 'impressive' multi-mic, multi-channel creations--which confuse the ears no end with their "artificially drawn" sound signatures.
Though the ear has been characterized as being a very vague and inaccurate appendage, IMHO ( and many others too share that belief), it is one of the best 'touchstones' that you can find in this world; throw ANY recording at it, and it can tell it is 'canned' and not the real thing. And whatever engineers and pundits might do in this domain in the near future, the situation is probably unlikely to change-- unless and until ways are found to 'splice in' what I call the individual "atma" (soul) of hearing into every preserved capsule of sound.
As for the control room situation and its reflection on the state of audio by the time it reaches the average listener, the less said is best. I have no intention of helping to raise the hackles of anybody, but the sad fact is that we have willingly strayed into a totally different alley for long. Rather than an attempt at canning a real life acoustic event with as little interference and intervention as possible, control room procedures have grown into an art form per se of concocting (it IS a concoction) a delectable sterephonic experience. Our humble take is that it is all very well and achieves what it sets out to do. Recording engineers are paid handsomely and, no doubt, they enjoy their work. But for the average listener to imprison himself for hours together into the strightjacket of the sweet spot in front his pair of 'laser beamers' (the only way to partake of what the engineer has carefully and skilfully assembled) and continue to enjoy that would require some sort of payment also to make it fully worth his/her while.
The basic question I guess is not which is better--bad stereo or good mono, or any more of such combinations. What ultimately the ears migrate towards (in their instinct and wisdom!) appears to be what has a resemblance to the "real thing", though it might have warts and all. Mere auditory (audiophile?) perfection or accuracy cannot deceive the ear/brain combo--at least not with the techniques and technologies that we think we have mastered.
My apologies for being somewhat 'unscientific'. Perhaps it is time we reminded ourselves that even logic has gone 'fuzzy' of late!
Permit me to present the experience and observations of our small group as regards a couple of points that you have touched on.
A wide-dispersion speaker is preferred over a narrow-beaming one by most of the listeners, irrespective of their listening background or experience, or their 'knowledge' of sound and fidelity. In other words, 'golden ears' or 'tin ears', the preference was for wide-dispersion speakers, and once that was experienced, it was difficult to go back to the more 'accurate' 'beamers'. In order to test this aspect, the wide-dispersion drivers were limited in frequency response (about 180 Hz to just around 10 kHz), and still the subjective preference was overwhelmingly in favour of the wide-dispersion setup, despite the better tonality, fuller FR and other subtleties of the 'beamers'.
The ear/brain combo instinctively shifts towards this as such a presentation perhaps comes nearest to a "live-like" situation in reproduction. More often we go after 'accuracy' instead of aiming for "as near to live/real as possible", because our logic tells us that is 'correct'. But the ear/brain prefers to vote the other way, it appears. Perhaps this also is the reason why many listeners are able to elicit more enjoyment from recordings done in the past using simple microphone arrangements than the more modern highly 'impressive' multi-mic, multi-channel creations--which confuse the ears no end with their "artificially drawn" sound signatures.
Though the ear has been characterized as being a very vague and inaccurate appendage, IMHO ( and many others too share that belief), it is one of the best 'touchstones' that you can find in this world; throw ANY recording at it, and it can tell it is 'canned' and not the real thing. And whatever engineers and pundits might do in this domain in the near future, the situation is probably unlikely to change-- unless and until ways are found to 'splice in' what I call the individual "atma" (soul) of hearing into every preserved capsule of sound.
As for the control room situation and its reflection on the state of audio by the time it reaches the average listener, the less said is best. I have no intention of helping to raise the hackles of anybody, but the sad fact is that we have willingly strayed into a totally different alley for long. Rather than an attempt at canning a real life acoustic event with as little interference and intervention as possible, control room procedures have grown into an art form per se of concocting (it IS a concoction) a delectable sterephonic experience. Our humble take is that it is all very well and achieves what it sets out to do. Recording engineers are paid handsomely and, no doubt, they enjoy their work. But for the average listener to imprison himself for hours together into the strightjacket of the sweet spot in front his pair of 'laser beamers' (the only way to partake of what the engineer has carefully and skilfully assembled) and continue to enjoy that would require some sort of payment also to make it fully worth his/her while.
The basic question I guess is not which is better--bad stereo or good mono, or any more of such combinations. What ultimately the ears migrate towards (in their instinct and wisdom!) appears to be what has a resemblance to the "real thing", though it might have warts and all. Mere auditory (audiophile?) perfection or accuracy cannot deceive the ear/brain combo--at least not with the techniques and technologies that we think we have mastered.
My apologies for being somewhat 'unscientific'. Perhaps it is time we reminded ourselves that even logic has gone 'fuzzy' of late!
Talk about 'unscientific', and back to the 'unconventional' of the topic, here is what I'm playing.
Based on this: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...-sound-single-loudspeaker-24.html#post2826324
And assisted by 2 narrow OBs on both sides for clearer lateral infomation by the narrow dispersion. The OBs are operating in the range of 300~10kHz or so. Above that, a pair of flooder tweeters take over (not shown in the pic, they're at the feet of OBs, up-firing).
The central DML panel is still running by the linear matrix 3-ch connection with x=0.5 and a shelfing filter on the unit at center.
Generally, this combination retains solid central image, depth, wide and natural stage, and a very large listening area. Tonal quality and images are very consistent in the room. I'm happy with the result so far.
ps. the little monitors on both sides of TV are not in the main system
Based on this: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...-sound-single-loudspeaker-24.html#post2826324
And assisted by 2 narrow OBs on both sides for clearer lateral infomation by the narrow dispersion. The OBs are operating in the range of 300~10kHz or so. Above that, a pair of flooder tweeters take over (not shown in the pic, they're at the feet of OBs, up-firing).
The central DML panel is still running by the linear matrix 3-ch connection with x=0.5 and a shelfing filter on the unit at center.
Generally, this combination retains solid central image, depth, wide and natural stage, and a very large listening area. Tonal quality and images are very consistent in the room. I'm happy with the result so far.
ps. the little monitors on both sides of TV are not in the main system
Attachments
@ 2Pi
Not at all a 'scientific' group, but rather a loose-knit one of about ten plus guys in the age bracket of 27 to 58 (that's me!), some of whom have made substantial investments in equipment with the thought of achieving the highest possible 'fi'. Often we have (as you have just now suggested to Oliver) "slanging matches" about the merits and demerits of various things/approaches etc. The good thing is that most of us go by what we can hear, and take with a pinch of salt the things that are often hyped a lot.
As you might by now begin to suspect, I am the "subversive force" quite often, and I am happy that we have been able to demonstrate what all I mentioned earlier to the satisfaction of most of us. As eyball-to-eyeball discussions tend to reach unintended alleys often, it is my practice to put most of what I believe in (and get converted to!) in my blog posts, mostly intended for this intimate circle of younger friends who no doubt have better hearing than this old self! The "atma" of hearing bit has been something that we had been debating for long, and as there seems to be some sort of a broad agreement by now, perhaps it is time for me to sum up my thoughts coherently.
I had stumbled upon your webpage sometime back and I liked what I saw. It is perhaps a coincidence that I rigged up a couple of 6 inch full range drivers of mediocre quality set face up in a couple of small plant pots, with coconut shell halves as reflectors/diffusers for the experiment (some distant relative of your Demokrit perhaps!) and I continue to listen to them with various programme material and derive a lot of satisfaction, not as regards absolute fidelity, but from the solid imaging and "liveness" of the pair, and the expansion of the sweet 'spot' to all over the place, including behind the speakers. I have also tried some absorbent material in between the closely placed pair, and also some crosstalk cancellation (a la Ambiophonics), and I can report that most of us who tried it out think positively about the results. The reproduction is great with simply produced older material than with more modern tracks bearing the stamp of multi-miking and panpot legerdemain.
Not at all a 'scientific' group, but rather a loose-knit one of about ten plus guys in the age bracket of 27 to 58 (that's me!), some of whom have made substantial investments in equipment with the thought of achieving the highest possible 'fi'. Often we have (as you have just now suggested to Oliver) "slanging matches" about the merits and demerits of various things/approaches etc. The good thing is that most of us go by what we can hear, and take with a pinch of salt the things that are often hyped a lot.
As you might by now begin to suspect, I am the "subversive force" quite often, and I am happy that we have been able to demonstrate what all I mentioned earlier to the satisfaction of most of us. As eyball-to-eyeball discussions tend to reach unintended alleys often, it is my practice to put most of what I believe in (and get converted to!) in my blog posts, mostly intended for this intimate circle of younger friends who no doubt have better hearing than this old self! The "atma" of hearing bit has been something that we had been debating for long, and as there seems to be some sort of a broad agreement by now, perhaps it is time for me to sum up my thoughts coherently.
I had stumbled upon your webpage sometime back and I liked what I saw. It is perhaps a coincidence that I rigged up a couple of 6 inch full range drivers of mediocre quality set face up in a couple of small plant pots, with coconut shell halves as reflectors/diffusers for the experiment (some distant relative of your Demokrit perhaps!) and I continue to listen to them with various programme material and derive a lot of satisfaction, not as regards absolute fidelity, but from the solid imaging and "liveness" of the pair, and the expansion of the sweet 'spot' to all over the place, including behind the speakers. I have also tried some absorbent material in between the closely placed pair, and also some crosstalk cancellation (a la Ambiophonics), and I can report that most of us who tried it out think positively about the results. The reproduction is great with simply produced older material than with more modern tracks bearing the stamp of multi-miking and panpot legerdemain.
Hi 2Pi,
agreed, that post was longish a bit ...
Maybe you could boil down some of the most agreed and some of the
most disagreed points in a few headlines ...
That would be interesting to me, especially as we seem to share
some common points regarding "purposeful" speaker design like
you describe your own approach your website.
The "more disagreed" points may be the more interesting ones, or
the ones to be refined.
When i looked at your "Aristoteles" measurements i had to smile
immediately:
- from 300Hz to 2Khz on axis slightly downtilted and energy response
with a falling tendency.
- from 2Khz to 6Khz almost flat on axis and in energy response as well.
- above 6Khz a slightly falling tendency on axis but more falling
in energy response.
I am sure the speaker sounds well balanced in "close to normal"
living room environment and would in my view be an example for
obeying the "implicit recording norm" in terms of tonal balance.
Cheers
Last edited:
Hi Oliver,
OK, I'll try it on a few random points but again this is not easy and may not be satisfying to you.
This whole concept about the "IRN", are you saying that whenever the end user speaker deviates from the speaker in the studio it needs re-equalization to perform better ?
Also, are we talking about speakers that sit one lenght of an arm ot two on the bridge of the mixing console conveying mostly direct sound to the guy ?
I know that Toole also advocates some standard speakers and rooms in the studio but I am not sure how far that standardization has to go.
"As there seems to be a tendency for most listeners to prefer "wide" radiating speakers..."
I don't have that impression, at least not in this forum.
"This has led to compensations, in many instances, during the act of recording and production. By tradition, many recordings are overly bright to fill in for this spectral deficiency and to compensate for off-axis listening."
As stated some time ago, we own an average collection of maybe 600CDs of virtually every genere. I have not observed the above statement except for recordings of one band coming from one particular studio in Berlin. The recordings are from Die Ärte if you care to listen to them. This applies especially to the digital recordings created in the 90s. But I think there is/was a local issue and it is not a general problem. Not in my collection anyway.
"On the other hand deviating from the implicit recording norm seems to be needed to get "outstanding imaging" under home conditions."
It is being said that narrow dispersion CD speakers provide excellent imaging. But how do they really deviate from the speakers in the studio ?
Moreover, imaging is primarily the result of microphone selection and placement and thus somewhat independent from the speaker used behind the screen.
Adding reverb later on to sweeten things up and to make it sound nicer may very well be related to the studio speakers. But you also know that the studio folks are much more sensitive to reverb than a naive listeners. So does it really count then in this respect what speakers they use as long as they "know" the speakers ?
I very much agree that the listening distance in conjuction with the dispersion pattern and the room is very important.
The Aristoteles measurements represent the current status of the "development". The speaker is not finished and still needs some work. The down tilting on axis response will most likely stretch from 100Hz to 20KHz monotonically falling. I also use the same shape with Demokrit only steeper because it would sound even brighter due to the power response. I have no explanation as to why I use this shape but it works well.
In general I believe meanwhile that very much can be drawn from the picture attached, although it has to be enjoyed with a pinch of salt since the typical small rooms at home are indeed somewhat different and also not 100% diffuse. It also explains e.g. why beaming tweeters let's say above 5KHz are not a real issue.
RFZ believer (?) I like that, too and I hope that this helped you a bit. My brother lives in Offenbach so maybe there is a chance one day for the now missing beer.
Cheers
Oliver
OK, I'll try it on a few random points but again this is not easy and may not be satisfying to you.
This whole concept about the "IRN", are you saying that whenever the end user speaker deviates from the speaker in the studio it needs re-equalization to perform better ?
Also, are we talking about speakers that sit one lenght of an arm ot two on the bridge of the mixing console conveying mostly direct sound to the guy ?
I know that Toole also advocates some standard speakers and rooms in the studio but I am not sure how far that standardization has to go.
"As there seems to be a tendency for most listeners to prefer "wide" radiating speakers..."
I don't have that impression, at least not in this forum.
"This has led to compensations, in many instances, during the act of recording and production. By tradition, many recordings are overly bright to fill in for this spectral deficiency and to compensate for off-axis listening."
As stated some time ago, we own an average collection of maybe 600CDs of virtually every genere. I have not observed the above statement except for recordings of one band coming from one particular studio in Berlin. The recordings are from Die Ärte if you care to listen to them. This applies especially to the digital recordings created in the 90s. But I think there is/was a local issue and it is not a general problem. Not in my collection anyway.
"On the other hand deviating from the implicit recording norm seems to be needed to get "outstanding imaging" under home conditions."
It is being said that narrow dispersion CD speakers provide excellent imaging. But how do they really deviate from the speakers in the studio ?
Moreover, imaging is primarily the result of microphone selection and placement and thus somewhat independent from the speaker used behind the screen.
Adding reverb later on to sweeten things up and to make it sound nicer may very well be related to the studio speakers. But you also know that the studio folks are much more sensitive to reverb than a naive listeners. So does it really count then in this respect what speakers they use as long as they "know" the speakers ?
I very much agree that the listening distance in conjuction with the dispersion pattern and the room is very important.
The Aristoteles measurements represent the current status of the "development". The speaker is not finished and still needs some work. The down tilting on axis response will most likely stretch from 100Hz to 20KHz monotonically falling. I also use the same shape with Demokrit only steeper because it would sound even brighter due to the power response. I have no explanation as to why I use this shape but it works well.
In general I believe meanwhile that very much can be drawn from the picture attached, although it has to be enjoyed with a pinch of salt since the typical small rooms at home are indeed somewhat different and also not 100% diffuse. It also explains e.g. why beaming tweeters let's say above 5KHz are not a real issue.
RFZ believer (?) I like that, too and I hope that this helped you a bit. My brother lives in Offenbach so maybe there is a chance one day for the now missing beer.
Cheers
Oliver
Attachments
Last edited:
Yeah, why not. I think it is always refreshing to hear an opinion from what sounds like unbiased folks.
Makes it a bio speaker I sometimes "have problems" with recordings that are done for surround sound and then down mixed to stereo, which should be similar. There are some really bad examples.
Although my own observations and models don't exactly coincide with those you quoted I substantially agree with the conclusion, loudspeakers beam their high frequencies at listeners in the audience, musical instruments don't. Therefore it is not hard to understand why loudspeakers almost never sound like musical instruments, not only in a concert hall where the acoustics are very different (recordings don't capture concert hall acoustics) but not even in your own room. It doesn't matter how much they cost either, their design simply doesn't take into account the mathematical model of the acoustics of real musical instruments and the human voice. In a sense it's remarkable that they are usually recognizeable at all.
Per your question to me, the FR must be flat all of the way back to the recording microphones, not just the playback system. This means that effectove measures must be taken to compensate for variations in the way recordings are made. It also means that all of the early reflections in the listening room from the general direction of the loudspeaker must be flat too. Commercial designs don't take this into account which is why I reject and criticize them as being inadequate and inaccurate. This includes all of those super priced models based on incorrect and incomplete design criteria. To get a recording of a musical instrument to sound like that instrument you must duplicate the sound field it produces at the listener's ears, not just a flat FR on axis in an anechoic chamber or averaged over a number of test points. There is no speaker system or sound system you can buy that does that. This is why only by DIY after carefully thinking through the problem to its solution can you hope for an acceptable result if you are an experienced and critical listener experienced with live music. I'm willing to divulge the models and design criteria including effective methods and how they work and a lot more....when the price is right.
Sure, given an opportunity some day, talking face to face would be nice.
Well it seems less like a concept, more "a line of thought". I do not claim there
is a defined standard now and i do not even think that more standardization would be
beneficial.
Even producers engineers etc. are listening to material which is produced slightly
"different" than they tend to to in their own studios and i regard that as most beneficial.
That norm could be a "mastering tendency" which is smoothed by some diversity of
equipment and control rooms.
Even the proposed "de facto norm" in radiation pattern used is a fuzzy (or averaged) one,
as there are different monitor speakers having different crossover frequencies etc.
And i also would tend to exclude nearfield monitors from what i speculated to be existent.
That may be true as we have several groups in here, who stick to
- Traditional fullrange driver concepts
- Multiway dipoles and even dipole line arrays
- Several wave guided concepts
"Overcoming the room" and searching for "homogeneity" seems to matter a lot and these
concepts at least seem to provide different performance than "usual" multiway speakers.
But e.g. in fullrange concepts every now and then a thread comes up like e.g.
"how do i cross in a (super)tweeter". Indicators to me that at a certain point even
proponents of narrow ( mostly narrowing with frequency) radiating speakers want to
do even something to "repair energy response and dispersion".
Being that a coinsciously chosen goal or not ...
And of course, some of the worst results in speaker building IMO come from
trying to "repair" a discontinouus dispersion over frequencies by equalising
the on axis response and causing rises and humps there.
There are also historical examples in commercial speakers, for the german market
the sound of the Canton brand in the 70's and 80's ("Taunus Sound") is an example
for that.
I do not know either if Moulton is right in criticizing most recordings being overbright.
If the collection of records is not too inhomogeneous regarding "brightness" you tilt your
own speakers FR as "some theory" or "personal taste" tells you it is right, and then you are fine ...
With broadband material well designed directional concepts may offer good and even outstanding imaging,
which i think is contributed by more overcoming the room at low to mid frequencies.
When it comes to make "speakers disapper" even with critical material (e.g. solo voices, instruments with noteable
high frequency spectral content) i doubt that very much.
Every single concept that is not "Monopole 2 or 3-way box" is likely to deviate from the "mastering tendency".
Of course deviations vary, depending on that individual concept and deviations are usually restricted
to certain frequency bands (the "beaming tweeter" e.g. is a very common de facto standard at least ..)
This is a very valuable hint i feel, because "redistributing" a radiation pattern over frequencies
(for the home and in a home speaker) and possibly making it noteably different to the "mastering tendency"
(maybe a better term than "norm"), will also need to take this into account (and also quite a lot more things ...).
An example: The directional band for "above" or "elevation detection" around 7..8Khz caused by the pinna's
filter characteristics, is to be taken into account if a speaker (the tweeter) has "different than usual"
elevation angle.
To me maybe explaining why it might be "less an issue than it could even be" but that seems a point where
we diverge in our personal estimations ...
Thanks a lot for your input ... (!)
Cheers
Last edited:
@Soundminded:
No doubt the re-creation of the exact soundfield at the original venue is the key to true fidelity, as most of us would think. The Ambisonics/Ambiophonics teams are trying to realize that to an extent. But isn't it a fact that hearing has certain peculiarities that has not yet been fully understood or addressed vis-a-vis reproduction. At least that is the 'theory' I believe in currently, and I am attempting to give the idea some presentable shape, though I guess I will post it in my blog as it is only a personal theory, and not backed by any 'scientific' proof, but the result of empirial observations and study.
We're all happy to an extent that current speakers sound as well as they do -- in spite of the great odds against them! Now I am sure I will be joined by many ardent DIYers if I shout to you, "...oh, sir! Save the world (of DIY) with your magic formula for ideal speakers..."
@2Pi:
Here is the eco-friendly "nut-pot omni"-- a half hour job as the team was waiting!
You said: << "As there seems to be a tendency for most listeners to prefer "wide" radiating speakers..."
I don't have that impression, at least not in this forum. >>
In answer I would say, the average lay listener doesnot ask for a wide radiating speaker-- he doesnt know what that is. Rather, when he has a chance to hear one, be it an OB dipole or a better omni like your Demokrit, they prefer the sound of that. The truth is that we too prefer that, but we know it is an omni! Perhaps your own sound impressions as a boy offer the key to this reaction. Narrow beamers also image well, but in their narrow spot. The moment your head is free of the vice, the image washes out. Not so in the case of the omnis.
I hear it said that studio monitors are 'clinical' so that they could 'reveal' things. All right, but for the life of me I can't figure out how the engineers can 'design' the sound the way it will sound "correctly" (meaning how it will help the sales of the records.. ;-) ) in the "average living room"--which is as good a modern myth as any-- while being flooded with the direct beam of monitors at arm's length played at high decibels. As I said earlier, the recording art has become a "separate reality", except for the lone voice or two of practitioners themselves advocating a harking back to realism/truth/'fidelity to rediscover its raison d'etre. Recordings that bear the unbearble combination of any number of individual mics, all operating close to the singer's lips or to the individual instruments and capturing all the nuances, but at the same time playing havoc with the essence of the Blumlein concept and confusing the ear even more as a result are, in my opinion, which is shared by many, NOT a few, but quite a few! Twenty-foot pianos we can perhaps live with, but a singer with a mouth a few metres wide is an atrocity that can only be discovered in what is concocted within the hallowed confines of the control room. I would seriously suggest a listen to some of those old classical LPs produced by the Russian label Melodia, and a comparison of that with some of the current crop. (No disrespect meant to excellent and musical labels like DG, Philips, Decca etc; but they had greater access to 'tech' even in those earlier days.)
Flat response (uniformity) is a supposed ideal, as we would all want the most 'neutral' approach to capturing and recording acoustic events. Only when I listen to the omni radiators do I feel the need for something like the 'tilt' tone control introduced by Quad (and Leak too?) in their preamps. With a simple stereo recording, particularly where levels have not been tampered with (how loud will that solo violin sound even if you are in one of those front rows??), the run-of-the-mill omnis will give a better approximation of the real thing than a 'hi-fi beamer', if you ask me. How many of us listen at "actual levels" conducive to suggest that either "they are here" or "we are there"? To tell the truth, the first time I realized the importance of that was when I made a simple recording and played it back. High levels are all right and maybe needed for impressive demos! And of course for those loud passages in classical (or even rock) music too. But for jazz and country and "quiet stuff" like that, how many of us are willing to trade high decibels for "timbral truth"?
I am sure the truth will emerge suddenly from the clouds one day, but only when we learn to understand and factor in that wonderful instrument, the ear, and how it hears, into our equations. My aplogies for monopolizing so much of space ...
No doubt the re-creation of the exact soundfield at the original venue is the key to true fidelity, as most of us would think. The Ambisonics/Ambiophonics teams are trying to realize that to an extent. But isn't it a fact that hearing has certain peculiarities that has not yet been fully understood or addressed vis-a-vis reproduction. At least that is the 'theory' I believe in currently, and I am attempting to give the idea some presentable shape, though I guess I will post it in my blog as it is only a personal theory, and not backed by any 'scientific' proof, but the result of empirial observations and study.
We're all happy to an extent that current speakers sound as well as they do -- in spite of the great odds against them! Now I am sure I will be joined by many ardent DIYers if I shout to you, "...oh, sir! Save the world (of DIY) with your magic formula for ideal speakers..."
@2Pi:
Here is the eco-friendly "nut-pot omni"-- a half hour job as the team was waiting!
You said: << "As there seems to be a tendency for most listeners to prefer "wide" radiating speakers..."
I don't have that impression, at least not in this forum. >>
In answer I would say, the average lay listener doesnot ask for a wide radiating speaker-- he doesnt know what that is. Rather, when he has a chance to hear one, be it an OB dipole or a better omni like your Demokrit, they prefer the sound of that. The truth is that we too prefer that, but we know it is an omni! Perhaps your own sound impressions as a boy offer the key to this reaction. Narrow beamers also image well, but in their narrow spot. The moment your head is free of the vice, the image washes out. Not so in the case of the omnis.
I hear it said that studio monitors are 'clinical' so that they could 'reveal' things. All right, but for the life of me I can't figure out how the engineers can 'design' the sound the way it will sound "correctly" (meaning how it will help the sales of the records.. ;-) ) in the "average living room"--which is as good a modern myth as any-- while being flooded with the direct beam of monitors at arm's length played at high decibels. As I said earlier, the recording art has become a "separate reality", except for the lone voice or two of practitioners themselves advocating a harking back to realism/truth/'fidelity to rediscover its raison d'etre. Recordings that bear the unbearble combination of any number of individual mics, all operating close to the singer's lips or to the individual instruments and capturing all the nuances, but at the same time playing havoc with the essence of the Blumlein concept and confusing the ear even more as a result are, in my opinion, which is shared by many, NOT a few, but quite a few! Twenty-foot pianos we can perhaps live with, but a singer with a mouth a few metres wide is an atrocity that can only be discovered in what is concocted within the hallowed confines of the control room. I would seriously suggest a listen to some of those old classical LPs produced by the Russian label Melodia, and a comparison of that with some of the current crop. (No disrespect meant to excellent and musical labels like DG, Philips, Decca etc; but they had greater access to 'tech' even in those earlier days.)
Flat response (uniformity) is a supposed ideal, as we would all want the most 'neutral' approach to capturing and recording acoustic events. Only when I listen to the omni radiators do I feel the need for something like the 'tilt' tone control introduced by Quad (and Leak too?) in their preamps. With a simple stereo recording, particularly where levels have not been tampered with (how loud will that solo violin sound even if you are in one of those front rows??), the run-of-the-mill omnis will give a better approximation of the real thing than a 'hi-fi beamer', if you ask me. How many of us listen at "actual levels" conducive to suggest that either "they are here" or "we are there"? To tell the truth, the first time I realized the importance of that was when I made a simple recording and played it back. High levels are all right and maybe needed for impressive demos! And of course for those loud passages in classical (or even rock) music too. But for jazz and country and "quiet stuff" like that, how many of us are willing to trade high decibels for "timbral truth"?
I am sure the truth will emerge suddenly from the clouds one day, but only when we learn to understand and factor in that wonderful instrument, the ear, and how it hears, into our equations. My aplogies for monopolizing so much of space ...
Attachments
Yeah that would be great. I always wanted to listen to a dipole line array.
Now do you think that is because they know it's "wrong" but they are being told to do it or is that driven by their sensitivity ?
In case of Demokrit a super tweeter was suggested multiple times to "fix" the on axis response, which is not required.
Yeah ! I am not sure if you follow the German DIY community at all. The K&T Björn speaker is such an example as well as one of the DIY contest speakers from 2011. Well, they play music somehow, are cheap and easy to build but that is it.
I have long standing plans to go to the Braun museum. Have you been there, is it worthwhile ?
But this is also in the picture somewhat ! Beyond the ~5KHz our hearing is more sensitive to the diffuse field/reflected sound. If you now build a speaker that keeps the power response up with wide dispersion or a dipole it will sound too bright in a room. So either leave the sound power to match the picture (a somewhat beaming tweeter) or tilt the on axis FR, which gives you a nicer perception of depth IMO.
Cheers
Sure, but you know it is not an "orthodox" one and it has rear
"filler tweeters"
...Cannot say, i think it is good to have some variation and so we are
all forced to tolerate some variation. Every evolutionary process relies on
variation ...
No problem in believing that, my Dipol 08 does not need tweeters either
for that aspect and relies on small/midsized fullrange drivers ... nevertheless
there is considerable EQ applied.
I haven't been there up to now, and it would be a good idea to do so ...
Yes, and having a close to omni speaker will enforce a noteably
downtilted FR ("on axis" and "energy response" being quite the same)
for the 2 uppermost octaves.
...
The diffuse field loudness curve will furtherly enforce that tendency,
which is a very valuable hint.
That is an example for equalisation being needed due to using different
than "common" dispersion over frequencies.
Cheers
On the other hand if there would be no such thing like
"common standard or tendency" in directivity over frequencies
applied in the mastering process, we would not have to think
about it in this way. So i see at least some evidence ...
But the existence of a "de facto" standard - even if fuzzy - is
also helpful for those designs which are consciously made for
deviation of the radiation pattern ... as the "transformation"
or "rebalancing" process seems not to be arbitrary.
"common standard or tendency" in directivity over frequencies
applied in the mastering process, we would not have to think
about it in this way. So i see at least some evidence ...
But the existence of a "de facto" standard - even if fuzzy - is
also helpful for those designs which are consciously made for
deviation of the radiation pattern ... as the "transformation"
or "rebalancing" process seems not to be arbitrary.
Last edited:
Hi,
Well but we got.. Toole.. and all that Not in this forum ?? Please see again
On the other hand it's shown that stereo triangle at high freqs cannot image, but the speaker itself becomes a perceived and localised source. The higher the directivity the more so. See earlier in this thread (my quotes below).
Propably not much ? Speakers in the studio also cannot image at high freqs ? Does the recording engineer care ? Propably not much !
- Elias
Well but we got.. Toole.. and all that
Not in this forum ?? Please see again On the other hand it's shown that stereo triangle at high freqs cannot image, but the speaker itself becomes a perceived and localised source. The higher the directivity the more so. See earlier in this thread (my quotes below).
Propably not much ? Speakers in the studio also cannot image at high freqs ? Does the recording engineer care ? Propably not much !
- Elias
Elias, I am sorry !Well but we got.. Toole.. and all that
I had mainly our "opponents" in mind. The ones with the
busters speakers...cross the rays !- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.