Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
What Can We Hear?
ScottW wrote:
On May 17, 3:48 am, "Gary Eickmeier" wrote: The conversation is going to break down into hyperbole (or perhaps already has). Speaker design is a series of compromises and each design path has a different set. Many of these are to address characteristics of different rooms and/or listener preference. I would agree that the choice of compromise is worthy of debate. I'm not sure I would agree that the "perfect speaker" is omnidirectional given the objective is to recreate a sound of an event in one location in a completely different (acoustically) location. Thanks Scotty. This is, at least, the beginnings of a conversation about a difficult and controversial topic. Audio Empire is a great source - at least it seems that way, from his writing, but I know not who he is, what credentials he has, if that matters so much to him - but he seems to be figuratively sticking his fingers in his ears, shutting his eyes, and erecting Engineers Club, Members Only signs all around his cubicle. That is not constructive, and avoids a lot of discussion that I was hoping he could handle. I have run into this time and time again. Maybe I am Chicken Little, making waves about a completely unimportant or nonexistent problem. Maybe not. I do not have an engineering degree - but that hasn't stopped a lot of "experts" in the field of audio who are making products that have no real merit. Audio is a funny subject. It's like, it's invisible and completely subjective, so you can say almost anything you want about various aspects of it and you might sell something. I realize that I need to "do the work" and prove some of my ideas with experiments with armies of college students filling out forms, blind listening tests, and testimonials from other "experts." I tried mightily last year, when Siegfried Linkwitz asked a few innocent questions, questions that should have been answered maybe 60 years ago and have not. It was called The Linkwitz Challenge, and was asked in an AES paper at a convention a couple of years ago. www.linkwitzlab.com/AES-NY'09/The%20Challenge.pdf Our audio club responded, so I had my chance and took it. I almost achieved some street cred with the preliminary result of http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/SLReport10.05.pdf but then they went on and somehow got the Behringer speakers to come out on top of even the Orions. I tried to point out some flaws in the test procedures, but they would have none of it, declared me a lunatic and a wacko for my ideas, so I resigned from the club and have been trying other paths ever since. Those cheezy Radio Shack speakers were actually the third prototypes that I have made, but I am not very good at speaker building (the engineering part of it), so I am not ready to parade them in front of my own test subjects or take them to the next AES convention yet. Even if I did, even if I made the perfect mousetrap, what would happen? They may make a splash for a year or two, then the industry at large would be ****ed because I have shown them how to make better sound for a lot lower price and profit margin, and I would be badmouthed by all the high end dealers and villified in the press. So if I have been once again shot down, I apologize and will shut up again unless and until poked by some other questions that someone wonders about in some area of speaker imaging or realism of reproduction. Audio Empire has been very communicative and forthcoming, and I believe he allowed me to send some papers and read them and maybe some of my experimental recordings, for which I thank him. I have enjoyed this discussion and a brief soapbox and will answer anyone who writes to me, but I guess I better get off the pot for a while again and go back into my cave. Gary Eickmeier |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
What Can We Hear?
On Fri, 18 May 2012 16:27:58 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article ): ScottW wrote: On May 17, 3:48 am, "Gary Eickmeier" wrote: The conversation is going to break down into hyperbole (or perhaps already has). Speaker design is a series of compromises and each design path has a different set. Many of these are to address characteristics of different rooms and/or listener preference. I would agree that the choice of compromise is worthy of debate. I'm not sure I would agree that the "perfect speaker" is omnidirectional given the objective is to recreate a sound of an event in one location in a completely different (acoustically) location. Thanks Scotty. This is, at least, the beginnings of a conversation about a difficult and controversial topic. Audio Empire is a great source - at least it seems that way, from his writing, but I know not who he is, what credentials he has, if that matters so much to him - but he seems to be figuratively sticking his fingers in his ears, shutting his eyes, and erecting Engineers Club, Members Only signs all around his cubicle. That is not constructive, and avoids a lot of discussion that I was hoping he could handle. I have run into this time and time again. Maybe I am Chicken Little, making waves about a completely unimportant or nonexistent problem. That's not it at all. Your problem is, and I have said this before. From what you have written, I have no confidence that you have even the slightest clue about what you are talking about. You remind me of the guy on an "alien encounters" type TV show who was trying to convince the viewers that an alien atomic explosion, not a meteor, wiped out the dinosaurs. As "proof" he said that the mounted skeletons of dinosaurs found in museums were all painted with "lead paint" so that the museum's patrons wouldn't get a dose of the radiation left over from that explosion. When he made that comment, I knew that the guy had no credibility. First of all, and probably most importantly, the mounted skeletons in museums are not the actual fossils anyway, because being rock (not bone) they would be too heavy to stand-up in a mount. Display skeletons are fiberglass "bones" made from the casts of the original fossils (and the older ones are likely shellacked papier mache). Secondly not being bone (it having long since disintegrated while being replaced with minerals) would no longer be radioactive even if it WERE when the animal died. And finally, were the "bones" radioactive, no coating of "lead paint" would shield the patrons from the radioactivity. No, I don't know the guy who made these outlandish claims, he might be a nice guy and a smart guy, but just that from WHAT HE SAID, I know that he had no knowledge of the subject upon which he was pontificating. Maybe not. I do not have an engineering degree - but that hasn't stopped a lot of "experts" in the field of audio who are making products that have no real merit. But you aren't selling a product. You are "selling" a theory, that from what I have gleaned from you posts and your posted "white paper", you lack the knowledge to actually be able to formulate. Audio is a funny subject. It's like, it's invisible and completely subjective, so you can say almost anything you want about various aspects of it and you might sell something. Sure, people sell green pens and funny looking free-form wooden sculptures that when placed in the listening space, supposedly tame the room. People also sell digital clocks that "miraculously" clean up the power line, and exotic wooden blocks that, when set on top of components make them sound "better." And the gullible buy these things and convince themselves that it was money well spent. But people like me don't buy them because we know that they have no scientific basis behind them and that they not only don't work, they CANNOT work. Pretending that we don't know everything there is to know about sound as a basis for these magic nostrums, might fool the untutored, but those of us with a solid background in engineering and physics simply know better. I realize that I need to "do the work" and prove some of my ideas with experiments with armies of college students filling out forms, blind listening tests, and testimonials from other "experts." It might help if you could show a mathematical model of your "theories" and I encourage you to do so. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
What Can We Hear?
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
ScottW wrote: On May 17, 3:48 am, "Gary Eickmeier" wrote: The conversation is going to break down into hyperbole (or perhaps already has). Speaker design is a series of compromises and each design path has a different set. Many of these are to address characteristics of different rooms and/or listener preference. I would agree that the choice of compromise is worthy of debate. I'm not sure I would agree that the "perfect speaker" is omnidirectional given the objective is to recreate a sound of an event in one location in a completely different (acoustically) location. Thanks Scotty. This is, at least, the beginnings of a conversation about a difficult and controversial topic. Audio Empire is a great source - at least it seems that way, from his writing, but I know not who he is, what credentials he has, if that matters so much to him - but he seems to be figuratively sticking his fingers in his ears, shutting his eyes, and erecting Engineers Club, Members Only signs all around his cubicle. I don't think that's it exactly. He's saying look, you have all these opinions, and these guys over here have opinions too, but they also have data and reserach studies. It's not about who is qualified to have an opinion; everyone is. That is not constructive, and avoids a lot of discussion that I was hoping he could handle. I have run into this time and time again. Maybe I am Chicken Little, making waves about a completely unimportant or nonexistent problem. Maybe not. I do not have an engineering degree - but that hasn't stopped a lot of "experts" in the field of audio who are making products that have no real merit. Audio is a funny subject. It's like, it's invisible and completely subjective, so you can say almost anything you want about various aspects of it and you might sell something. I realize that I need to "do the work" and prove some of my ideas with experiments with armies of college students filling out forms, blind listening tests, and testimonials from other "experts." Well, yes. The questions I have to ask a what kind of evidence would it take to convince you that you were wrong? How would you design an experiment that has the best chance to refute your own theories as convincingly as possible? Andrew. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
What Can We Hear?
Andrew Haley wrote:
I don't think that's it exactly. He's saying look, you have all these opinions, and these guys over here have opinions too, but they also have data and reserach studies. It's not about who is qualified to have an opinion; everyone is. What data and research studies? I have pointed out that no one has answered Linkwitz's questions in all of audio history yet. He asked about what I call "The Big Three" of radiation pattern, speaker positioning, and room acoustics. The simple question was, which radiation pattern is most correct, which room positioning of speakers, what sort of room treatment is most correct for the establishment of the most realistic AS, or Auditory Scene (as compared to live sound). I have also pointed out that there is little or no agreement among the "experts" about any of these things. There is no basic stereo theory, or paradigm or model of how it should be done in systems with the highest goals - namely, the realistic reproduction of auditory perspective. I searched all through Floyd Toole's new book and found nothing on this subject, nothing that answered Linkwitz's questions. Well, yes. The questions I have to ask a what kind of evidence would it take to convince you that you were wrong? How would you design an experiment that has the best chance to refute your own theories as convincingly as possible? That one is simple Andrew. Just construct a test that shows that the Big Three are not audible. You might have a variety of speakers from dipoles to omnis to direct firing, you might place them up against the wall, out into the room, or in the corners. You might have a room that is highly reflective at the speaker end, or highly absorptive. If you can show that none of these factors is audible, then I would have to go back into my cave and admit defeat. Gary Eickmeier |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
What Can We Hear?
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
... That's not it at all. Your problem is, and I have said this before. From what you have written, I have no confidence that you have even the slightest clue about what you are talking about. That doesn't advance any argument whatsoever. What did I say to make you feel that way? Argue the subject, if you are so knowledgeable. But you aren't selling a product. You are "selling" a theory, that from what I have gleaned from you posts and your posted "white paper", you lack the knowledge to actually be able to formulate. AE, I don't think you have been able to follow this subject. I have said nothing erroneous, or even all that controversial. I have explained in greater detail what William Snow said, that stereo is a field-type system, in which we attempt to reconstruct the fields that existed in the original. The basic idea is that you place speakers around the room where you want the sounds to come from. Have you heard about surround sound? Three speakers are placed up front, arranged in geometrecally similar positions to the positions of the instruments that were recorded. Surround speakers are placed where ambient fields belong. Image Model Theory goes into greater detail about the frontal soundstage, explaining how to arrange the radiation pattern, room positioning, and reflective qualities of the walls to mimic the spatial patterns of the original. The main point is that the spatial qualities of speakers and rooms are audible, such as between corner horns and MBLs or Quads pulled out from the walls. I suggest a model that you can use to determine which arrangement is more realistic, that the answer to what causes perceptual qualities of stereo does not come from the direct sound alone, as has been thought by most writers in the past. I encourage you to study auditory perspective theory from the standpoint of the total horizontal acoustical situation, illustrated by what is called the image model of the room and speakers. All of these things have been talked around in the past, but not tied together into a cohesive theory to explain why something sounds the way it does in more visual terms. See if you can go over it all again and tell me anything I said that is wrong. Sure, people sell green pens and funny looking free-form wooden sculptures that when placed in the listening space, supposedly tame the room. People also sell digital clocks that "miraculously" clean up the power line, and exotic wooden blocks that, when set on top of components make them sound "better." And the gullible buy these things and convince themselves that it was money well spent. But people like me don't buy them because we know that they have no scientific basis behind them and that they not only don't work, they CANNOT work. Pretending that we don't know everything there is to know about sound as a basis for these magic nostrums, might fool the untutored, but those of us with a solid background in engineering and physics simply know better. It might help if you could show a mathematical model of your "theories" and I encourage you to do so. STOP IT! This is not mathematical! It is conceptual! You have just GOT to get this material. Or at least talk to me so I can tell what step is missing from my explanation. OK, you stopped short again. I told about an experiment that I participated in that helped answer Linkwitz's very basic questions, in which I was quite successful. Talk to me. Gary Eickmeier PS - suggestion, to throw the ball back into your court so you can straighten me right out: YOU tell ME what are the answers to Linkwitz's challenge questions. What is the corrct radiation pattern, speaker positioning, and room acoustical qualities for the greatest realism in the reproduction of the Auditory Scene, or AS? Why? How do you know? Have you thought about it much before, or do you think that "The Big Three" are not audible? |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
What Can We Hear?
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Andrew Haley wrote: The questions I have to ask a what kind of evidence would it take to convince you that you were wrong? How would you design an experiment that has the best chance to refute your own theories as convincingly as possible? That one is simple Andrew. Just construct a test that shows that the Big Three are not audible. Excuse me! No-one is claiming that radiation pattern, speaker positioning, and room acoustics are not audible. That is something about which there is no disagreement. You might have a variety of speakers from dipoles to omnis to direct firing, you might place them up against the wall, out into the room, or in the corners. You might have a room that is highly reflective at the speaker end, or highly absorptive. If you can show that none of these factors is audible, then I would have to go back into my cave and admit defeat. So, nothing short of proving that radiation pattern, speaker positioning, and room acoustics are not audible will make you doubt your theories. But we already know that thse things are audible, so there is no experiment that could be done by anyone that would make a diference to you. Andrew. |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
What Can We Hear?
Andrew Haley wrote:
So, nothing short of proving that radiation pattern, speaker positioning, and room acoustics are not audible will make you doubt your theories. But we already know that thse things are audible, so there is no experiment that could be done by anyone that would make a diference to you. Andrew. Er - excuse ME, but then you agree with me. I have said that those factors are audible and we should study the reproduction problem from the standpoint of what those do to the sound. Linkwitz asked the same question, is there a way to distinguish which variations of those factors lead to greatest realism in the reproduction. But there is a way to visualize the whole situation, a method that is time honored and not controversial, and it is called image modeling. My contribution is to propose that we study the reproduction problem from the standpoint of comparing the image model of the live event to that of the reproduction system of speakers and room. Most studies about stereo have dealt with only the direct sound radiated from a pair or a line of speakers. I point out that this approach sees the problem as a "windowing" or portaling process, but that it might operate more like a model of the real thing in which we should pay attention to the sound patterns produced in the room by the full model, not just the direct field. I relate my success with this approach both in my own system and in an experiment conducted by my audio club. I fully realize that all the talk in the world will not prove any of it to you just by reading what I have written, but you may have already experienced the effect that I am talking about in your listening experience. Writers and audiophiles talk about the "floating" of images, depth of soundstaging, and speakers disappearing. These are some of the effects that Linkwitz experiences in his system, with its highly reflective room and his equi-omni radiation pattern and his speakers pulled out into the room. The speaker disappearing act is caused by a simple image shift toward the reflected sound from behind the actual speakers. An aerial image is formed in the region behind the speakers, getting the sound OUT of the speaker boxes and creating the unmistakable impression of the musicians being right there in front of you performing in your room, rather than sounding like they are flat cartoons coming from the speakers and strung on a clothesline between the speakers, with no depth or dimensionality. When done right, the reflected sound that was recorded can seem to come from a broad set of incident angles that are wider than the separation of the actual speakers, lending the spaciousness that direct and reflecting speakers are famous for. The combined effect gives the impression of the performers in front of you along with turning your room into a model of the original hall, especially when surround speakers are incorporated. If it is a tight and dry recording, they are here. If it has some hall ambience recorded, they are here and so is most of the acoustical environment of the original, displayed where it belongs deep behind the performers and super wide beside and behind you. You may have heard this effect with Quads, Martin Logans, MBLs, or even yes, Bose 901s if placed correctly. I don't know if audiophiles think that this effect is caused by point sourcedness, time alignment, or magic, but I am here to tell you what does cause it and how to incorporate that into basic stereo theory and perfect it. Without an understanding of what causes all this three dimensionality and speakers disappearing, you are just as liable to place your speakers right up against the walls, or in the corners of your room, and never experience what I am talking about. I discovered it by accident and have been studying it for close to 30 years now. You can fight me about it or study it further and try it youself, I don't care, I'm just trying to explain something about genuinely audible effects from an angle that has not been examined this closely before. Thank you for your patience! Gary Eickmeier, aka Chicken Little |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
What Can We Hear?
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Andrew Haley wrote: So, nothing short of proving that radiation pattern, speaker positioning, and room acoustics are not audible will make you doubt your theories. But we already know that thse things are audible, so there is no experiment that could be done by anyone that would make a diference to you. Er - excuse ME, but then you agree with me. Insamuch as I agree that these factors change the sound, yes. If that's all that your theories amount to, we're done. But I don't think it is. I have said that those factors are audible and we should study the reproduction problem from the standpoint of what those do to the sound. Linkwitz asked the same question, is there a way to distinguish which variations of those factors lead to greatest realism in the reproduction. But there is a way to visualize the whole situation, a method that is time honored and not controversial, and it is called image modeling. My contribution is to propose that we study the reproduction problem from the standpoint of comparing the image model of the live event to that of the reproduction system of speakers and room. Most studies about stereo have dealt with only the direct sound radiated from a pair or a line of speakers. I point out that this approach sees the problem as a "windowing" or portaling process, but that it might operate more like a model of the real thing in which we should pay attention to the sound patterns produced in the room by the full model, not just the direct field. I think you're arguing against a straw man. Nobody disagrees that you have to model the room. Toole, with whom you say you have some disagreement, does not disagree with this, and talks at length about the beneficial effects of room reflections, particularly on apparent source width. Without an understanding of what causes all this three dimensionality and speakers disappearing, you are just as liable to place your speakers right up against the walls, or in the corners of your room, and never experience what I am talking about. Well, yes. But no-one with a clue does that. Again, I'm going to ask the question: what experimental results would it take to convince you that Toole at al are right, and you are wrong? Note that Toole goes to some length to explain why dead rooms are far from ideal, the recordiong indistry's preference for them is a historical mistake. The difference, as far as I can see it, is that you prefer a greater amount of reflected sound, and you have some uncommon theories about speaker placement. Andrew. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
What Can We Hear?
On Mon, 21 May 2012 07:30:33 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article ): The speaker disappearing act is caused by a simple image shift toward the reflected sound from behind the actual speakers. An aerial image is formed in the region behind the speakers, getting the sound OUT of the speaker boxes and creating the unmistakable impression of the musicians being right there in front of you performing in your room, rather than sounding like they are flat cartoons coming from the speakers and strung on a clothesline between the speakers, with no depth or dimensionality. You speak as if this is a characteristic inherent in the speaker itself. Well, I agree that the speaker must be able to image well and "throw" a wide and deep soundstage, BUT - and this is all important - if the information is NOT there on the recording in the first place, even the world's best imaging speakers won't be able to produce the illusion to which you refer. Take most any classical recording from the mid-sixties to the late eighties and the great majority of recordings made since then, and there is NO imaging information on the recording. Most are, as you so aptly put it, a series of "flat cartoons" 'Strung on a clothesline." This is because most recordings are multi-miked, multi-track travesties and sound simply dreadful from an imaging perspective. I believe that one of the reasons that audiophiles still revere recordings made more than 55 years ago by the likes of Lewis Layton, and Richard Mohr at RCA Victor, Bob Fine, Wilma Fine and Bob Eberenz at Mercury, and Bert Whyte for Everest is because these recordings were made with simple, two or three mike setups directly to tape with no electronic "futzing" between the mikes and the tape. Many of these recordings have the soundstage information that allows for good, realistic imaging (assuming that the playback system is up to the task). Now, it's true that today's audiophile is more likely to listen to rock music than he is to listen to classical, and I've always found this to be amusing. They talk of imaging while listening to recordings which not only don't have any imaging, they CAN'T have any because the instruments themselves are individually recorded, not the space which the instruments inhabit. In fact, in many rock and pop recordings, all of the acoustic instruments (saxes, horns, woodwinds, strings), if any, are "frapped" (recorded using a contact microphone where the microphone is designed to be attached directly to the body of the instrument and therefore picks-up the sound of the instrument through the instrument itself, not through the air) and then laid down on it's own isolated track to be mixed into the finished recording later. In these cases, the individual tracks are pan-potted into the final mix so that the instruments ARE lined up as if on a clothesline. and due to the extreme close-up perspective afforded by "frapping" are cartoon cut-outs of the instruments in question because the space that the instrument occupies wasn't captured along with the instrument itself. "Classic" stereo jazz recordings fare little better. Each instrument is again miked separately, then mixed-down to three tracks. right, left, and a phantom center channel (where the soloist or principle player (instrumental or vocalist) is invariably placed). There's no real imaging here either. One of the things that drove me, originally, to start recording was my desire for "real" stereo recordings, done right. Since one couldn't rely on the major labels to do it right, I figured I'd be better off "rolling my own". The results have been pretty spectacular over the years, and I've rarely heard anything that sounds as good or images as well on commercial releases. One would think that with all the resources at the disposal of the major record companies that they could do at least as well as I can with my modest resources, but the don't. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
What Can We Hear?
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
... On Mon, 21 May 2012 07:30:33 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote (in article ): The speaker disappearing act is caused by a simple image shift toward the reflected sound from behind the actual speakers. An aerial image is formed in the region behind the speakers, getting the sound OUT of the speaker boxes and creating the unmistakable impression of the musicians being right there in front of you performing in your room, rather than sounding like they are flat cartoons coming from the speakers and strung on a clothesline between the speakers, with no depth or dimensionality. You speak as if this is a characteristic inherent in the speaker itself. Well, I agree that the speaker must be able to image well and "throw" a wide and deep soundstage, BUT - and this is all important - if the information is NOT there on the recording in the first place, even the world's best imaging speakers won't be able to produce the illusion to which you refer. Take most any classical recording from the mid-sixties to the late eighties and the great majority of recordings made since then, and there is NO imaging information on the recording. Most are, as you so aptly put it, a series of "flat cartoons" 'Strung on a clothesline." This is because most recordings are multi-miked, multi-track travesties and sound simply dreadful from an imaging perspective. I believe that one of the reasons that audiophiles still revere recordings made more than 55 years ago by the likes of Lewis Layton, and Richard Mohr at RCA Victor, Bob Fine, Wilma Fine and Bob Eberenz at Mercury, and Bert Whyte for Everest is because these recordings were made with simple, two or three mike setups directly to tape with no electronic "futzing" between the mikes and the tape. Many of these recordings have the soundstage information that allows for good, realistic imaging (assuming that the playback system is up to the task). Yes, sure, I agree with most of that, but with some caveats. As I mentioned, if it is a tight and dry recording it gives a "they are here" impression. In other words, no original acoustics recorded, it places the instruments right in the environment of your listening room, like a player piano or something. Those images will take a position the closest up front that your system is capable of displaying, but still should not EVER come from the speaker boxes themselves. At the audio club I demonstrated this with the dry, mono recording of the human voice outdoors. I transferred it to my laptop and processed it with Audition so that it would pan from extreme right to extreme left chennel. This was with my experimental speakers that were entered in The Challenge. Most audio people would expect such a dry sound to image from one speaker to the other and come from the speaker itself when at the channel extremes. So to prove my point, I obtained an orange cone from Home Depot so that I could place a visual where the audience perceived the sound to be coming from. I started the recording at stage right, and when it got to the center I asked them where the voice was. I placed the cone as directed until everyone agreed. It ended up centered but a foot or two back behind the line of the speakers. Same question when it got to stage extreme left. To their surprise the voice was coming not from the speaker but from a foot behind the speaker - unmistakably. To me, this proves the image shift, which slightly defies the precedence principle. But even the textbooks say that if the reflection is strong enough there will be an image shift. This principle can be a very powerful tool in setting up your speaker system for imaging, but if done wrong can be a disaster of Consumer Reports vs Bose proportions. Bose did not give correct speaker positioning instructions in the owner manual for the 901s, inviting disaster with a strongly negative directivity speaker (strong reflected portion of its output). CR reported a hole in the middle and stretched soloists, as did many audiophiles. If correctly placed by accident, they could be impressive, but if you put them too close to the walls all of the criticisms rear their ugly heads. Draw an image model of the problem and you can see easily what is happening. Move the speakers closer to the front wall and depth diminishes because the reflected image speaker gets closer to the actual one. Move the speakers wider, and the total image (or soundstage) becomes narrower! Place them within a foot or two of the corners, and you get a "clustering" of acoustic images that causes this hole in the middle and six foot wide soloists. I threw caution to the winds one fine day and pulled my speakers out from the walls and in to about 1/4 of the room width, and all of a sudden the sound focused itself like a camera lens and there in front of me was the answer to many questions. I don't know where Andrew got the impression that I disagreed with Floyd on something. What I said was that I read all through his book for the answers to Linkwitz's very basic questions but couldn't find specific recommendations on radiation pattern, speaker positioning or room acoustics except to the extent that he agreed that reflected sound was necessary in any audio setup. In fact, I wrote to him several times and asked him directly about these questions, and also noted the many areas in his book that supported my IMT. I was hoping for some sort of endorsement of my writings, but it was not forthcoming. I have found that the well-known and respected engineers will not commit themselves on paper to any outside unsolicited ideas, especially off the beaten path ones like mine. I had a nice, long talk on the phone with Siegfried, but he would not write that my ideas were answers to his questions. Same with Dr. Bose, in case you were wondering. I have tried to get him to come out with an advanced, audiophile class 901 speaker with a slightly different radiation pattern, but he is more interested in the mass market than the small group that classifies themselves as audiophiles. And of course it is the same as with unsolicited manuscripts sent to Hollywood producers - they will not even be opened or acknowledged, for fear of lawsuits if they use any of your material without paying you. So I remain a voice crying in the wilderness. So fine. Gary Eickmeier |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
What Can We Hear?
On Tue, 22 May 2012 18:51:10 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 May 2012 07:30:33 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote (in article ): The speaker disappearing act is caused by a simple image shift toward the reflected sound from behind the actual speakers. An aerial image is formed in the region behind the speakers, getting the sound OUT of the speaker boxes and creating the unmistakable impression of the musicians being right there in front of you performing in your room, rather than sounding like they are flat cartoons coming from the speakers and strung on a clothesline between the speakers, with no depth or dimensionality. You speak as if this is a characteristic inherent in the speaker itself. Well, I agree that the speaker must be able to image well and "throw" a wide and deep soundstage, BUT - and this is all important - if the information is NOT there on the recording in the first place, even the world's best imaging speakers won't be able to produce the illusion to which you refer. Take most any classical recording from the mid-sixties to the late eighties and the great majority of recordings made since then, and there is NO imaging information on the recording. Most are, as you so aptly put it, a series of "flat cartoons" 'Strung on a clothesline." This is because most recordings are multi-miked, multi-track travesties and sound simply dreadful from an imaging perspective. I believe that one of the reasons that audiophiles still revere recordings made more than 55 years ago by the likes of Lewis Layton, and Richard Mohr at RCA Victor, Bob Fine, Wilma Fine and Bob Eberenz at Mercury, and Bert Whyte for Everest is because these recordings were made with simple, two or three mike setups directly to tape with no electronic "futzing" between the mikes and the tape. Many of these recordings have the soundstage information that allows for good, realistic imaging (assuming that the playback system is up to the task). Yes, sure, I agree with most of that, but with some caveats. As I mentioned, if it is a tight and dry recording it gives a "they are here" impression. In other words, no original acoustics recorded, it places the instruments right in the environment of your listening room, like a player piano or something. Those images will take a position the closest up front that your system is capable of displaying, but still should not EVER come from the speaker boxes themselves. Unless you "frap" the instrument, or record in an anechoic chamber, that's impossible. At the audio club I demonstrated this with the dry, mono recording of the human voice outdoors. I transferred it to my laptop and processed it with Audition so that it would pan from extreme right to extreme left chennel. This was with my experimental speakers that were entered in The Challenge. Most audio people would expect such a dry sound to image from one speaker to the other and come from the speaker itself when at the channel extremes. So to prove my point, I obtained an orange cone from Home Depot so that I could place a visual where the audience perceived the sound to be coming from. I started the recording at stage right, and when it got to the center I asked them where the voice was. I placed the cone as directed until everyone agreed. It ended up centered but a foot or two back behind the line of the speakers. Same question when it got to stage extreme left. To their surprise the voice was coming not from the speaker but from a foot behind the speaker - unmistakably. To me, this proves the image shift, which slightly defies the precedence principle. But even the textbooks say that if the reflection is strong enough there will be an image shift. That can also be attributed to a frequency suckout in the voice range of the speakers used. Conversely, a peak in that range would put the voice forward of the speaker. Another variable would be room acoustics. A subtractive phase anomaly could move the voice backwards or and additive one could move it forward . This principle can be a very powerful tool in setting up your speaker system for imaging, but if done wrong can be a disaster of Consumer Reports vs Bose proportions. Bose did not give correct speaker positioning instructions in the owner manual for the 901s, inviting disaster with a strongly negative directivity speaker (strong reflected portion of its output). CR reported a hole in the middle and stretched soloists, as did many audiophiles. If correctly placed by accident, they could be impressive, but if you put them too close to the walls all of the criticisms rear their ugly heads. Bose speakers and systems are lousy. Always have been. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
What Can We Hear?
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"Audio Empire" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 May 2012 07:30:33 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote (in article ): The speaker disappearing act is caused by a simple image shift toward the reflected sound from behind the actual speakers. An aerial image is formed in the region behind the speakers, getting the sound OUT of the speaker boxes and creating the unmistakable impression of the musicians being right there in front of you performing in your room, rather than sounding like they are flat cartoons coming from the speakers and strung on a clothesline between the speakers, with no depth or dimensionality. You speak as if this is a characteristic inherent in the speaker itself. Well, I agree that the speaker must be able to image well and "throw" a wide and deep soundstage, BUT - and this is all important - if the information is NOT there on the recording in the first place, even the world's best imaging speakers won't be able to produce the illusion to which you refer. Take most any classical recording from the mid-sixties to the late eighties and the great majority of recordings made since then, and there is NO imaging information on the recording. Most are, as you so aptly put it, a series of "flat cartoons" 'Strung on a clothesline." This is because most recordings are multi-miked, multi-track travesties and sound simply dreadful from an imaging perspective. I believe that one of the reasons that audiophiles still revere recordings made more than 55 years ago by the likes of Lewis Layton, and Richard Mohr at RCA Victor, Bob Fine, Wilma Fine and Bob Eberenz at Mercury, and Bert Whyte for Everest is because these recordings were made with simple, two or three mike setups directly to tape with no electronic "futzing" between the mikes and the tape. Many of these recordings have the soundstage information that allows for good, realistic imaging (assuming that the playback system is up to the task). Yes, sure, I agree with most of that, but with some caveats. As I mentioned, if it is a tight and dry recording it gives a "they are here" impression. In other words, no original acoustics recorded, it places the instruments right in the environment of your listening room, like a player piano or something. Those images will take a position the closest up front that your system is capable of displaying, but still should not EVER come from the speaker boxes themselves. At the audio club I demonstrated this with the dry, mono recording of the human voice outdoors. I transferred it to my laptop and processed it with Audition so that it would pan from extreme right to extreme left chennel. This was with my experimental speakers that were entered in The Challenge. Most audio people would expect such a dry sound to image from one speaker to the other and come from the speaker itself when at the channel extremes. So to prove my point, I obtained an orange cone from Home Depot so that I could place a visual where the audience perceived the sound to be coming from. I started the recording at stage right, and when it got to the center I asked them where the voice was. I placed the cone as directed until everyone agreed. It ended up centered but a foot or two back behind the line of the speakers. Same question when it got to stage extreme left. To their surprise the voice was coming not from the speaker but from a foot behind the speaker - unmistakably. To me, this proves the image shift, which slightly defies the precedence principle. But even the textbooks say that if the reflection is strong enough there will be an image shift. Sorry, but for me it proves nothing except your own confirmation bias First It's wihin error circle from the speaker anyway (our senses are not that precise). Second it has all the drawbacks of sigthte evaluations). Third while effect could be real afrer all, its cause could be completely different, as Audio Empire pointed out Draw an image model of the problem and you can see easily what is happening. Well, that exemplifies the trouble I have with what you call a theory. This is your apriori assumption how things works, but it lacks any physical or psychoacoustical explanation. Nice simple drawings are not an explanation. Move the speakers closer to the front wall and depth diminishes because the reflected image speaker gets closer to the actual one. Move the speakers wider, and the total image (or soundstage) becomes narrower! Place them within a foot or two of the corners, and you get a "clustering" of acoustic images that causes this hole in the middle and six foot wide soloists. I threw caution to the winds one fine day and pulled my speakers out from the walls and in to about 1/4 of the room width, and all of a sudden the sound focused itself like a camera lens and there in front of me was the answer to many questions. But how you excluded other possible causes like (subjectively) better frequency response due to particular cancellation and reinforcement caused by room modes, etc.? How about that depth increase/reduction has nothing to do with simple geometrical reflections but due to particular changes in ratio between direct and reverberant sound? Usable theory must explain things, should also describe limitations of it's applicability. Without that it's not a theory, its just a trick recipe. I don't know where Andrew got the impression that I disagreed with Floyd on something. What I said was that I read all through his book for the answers to Linkwitz's very basic questions but couldn't find specific recommendations on radiation pattern, speaker positioning or room acoustics except to the extent that he agreed that reflected sound was necessary in any audio setup. In fact, I wrote to him several times and asked him directly about these questions, and also noted the many areas in his book that supported my IMT. I was hoping for some sort of endorsement of my writings, but it was not forthcoming. I have found that the well-known and respected engineers will not commit themselves on paper to any outside unsolicited ideas, especially off the beaten path ones like mine. I had a nice, long talk on the phone with Siegfried, but he would not write that my ideas were answers to his questions. Same with Dr. Bose, in case you were wondering. I have tried to get him to come out with an advanced, audiophile class 901 speaker with a slightly different radiation pattern, but he is more interested in the mass market than the small group that classifies themselves as audiophiles. And of course it is the same as with unsolicited manuscripts sent to Hollywood producers - they will not even be opened or acknowledged, for fear of lawsuits if they use any of your material without paying you. So I remain a voice crying in the wilderness. So fine. You should look into the physics and physiology and conduct some well controlled experiments (the ones you described above were certainly not well controlled). If you look at Siegfried Linkwitz page you'll see a lot of physical explanations, you'll see real hard numbers, you'll see references to psychoacustcs, etc. For example. when SL tell us that his Plutos should be listened at closer distance than his Orions (in a same given room), then it's explained why and supported by hard physics. rgds \SK -- "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang -- http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels) |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
What you hear ain't what you get.... | Pro Audio | |||
Do you hear what I hear? | High End Audio | |||
Can you hear me again? | Audio Opinions | |||
Ever hear of this? | General | |||
Can You Hear Me Now? | Pro Audio |