Cones can definitely pose a problem with the wide dispersion. I could
never figure out why one would want such a wide dispersion. Some high
end speakers even brag about 360 degree dispersion! Please no! I will
say, though, If its one desire to fill the room with sound, cones are
best. Planars are
Wombat;615257 Wrote:
> Placement always playes a role. You may wonder that even the huge
> Avantgarde Trios have a sweet spot and should be positioned with care.
> I couldn´t believe but experienced that at their lab.
>
> Edit: i just noticed earwaxer has a pair of Maggie´s and afaik magic
> has
Placement always playes a role. You may wonder that even the huge
Avantgarde Trios have a sweet spot and should be positioned with care.
I couldn´t believe but experienced that at their lab.
--
Wombat
Transporter (modded) -> RG142 -> Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA
monoblocks -> Sommer SPK240
earwaxer9;615059 Wrote:
> What I have come to realize is that the better the sound coming from
> the speakers the LESS important placement seems to be.
Could not disagree more. IMO, it is the other way around. Room
placement can´t save a crappy stereo, but can do wonders to bring the
best out
But planar speakers like maggies in a suitable large room decent
placement with a listener seated in the "beam" far from walls IS a
good solution to the acoustical problem.
Try dynamic speakers in smaller rooms and you see something else .
Big planars have some benefits their dipole pattern mak
earwaxer9;615059 Wrote:
> ... As far as "eq" is concerned - no self respecting audiophile would
> EVER engage in such a thing. I dont care if its analog or digital. It
> wasnt good in the 70's and its not good now. Just because its call
> "digital" doesnt make it ok. Get your gear together and yo
magiccarpetride;613824 Wrote:
> I've been recently spending some time with several audiophile friends
> and acquaintances, talking shop, comparing notes, exchanging tall audio
> stories.
>
> One thing that caught my attention is how pretty much everyone kept
> insisting that speaker positioning
Phil Leigh;614176 Wrote:
> There isn't a domestic speaker that can even accurately reproduce the
> visceral roar of a Marshall stack or a Hammond organ, never mind
> something as complex as a Trumpet...
I rather think that was my original point. Recorded music and its
subsequent playback in a ho
On 02/27/2011 12:45 PM, Phil Leigh wrote:
> To a degree, yes... but 80% of my collection comprises amplified
> instruments and close mic'd vocals recorded in studios
that describes well all of the pop, rock, hiphop, county, etc. in the
world. And at least 80 percent of my collection as well. But a
pfarrell;614196 Wrote:
> On 02/27/2011 11:05 AM, Daverz wrote:
> >> Phase is how you know where the lion/tiger is, or the crack of a
> >> broken piece of grass when a warrior of the other tribe is sneaking
> up on
> >> you.
> >
> > That's a cute just-so story, but it doesn't mean that we are very
On 02/27/2011 11:58 AM, Mnyb wrote:
> The brain also has a beautiful time gating function ? or what to call
> it.
I would call it signal processing.
> Even in the most undampened room or cave you can hear direction if
> someone talks to you even if the reflected sound has almost the same
> power
The brain also has a beautiful time gating function ? or what to call
it.
Even in the most undampened room or cave you can hear direction if
someone talks to you even if the reflected sound has almost the same
power, (it can ofcourse partly also be a learned response to identify
the most "correc
On 02/27/2011 11:05 AM, Daverz wrote:
>> Phase is how you know where the lion/tiger is, or the crack of a
>> broken piece of grass when a warrior of the other tribe is sneaking up on
>> you.
>
> That's a cute just-so story, but it doesn't mean that we are very
> sensitive to lack of time coherence
pfarrell;614064 Wrote:
> This leads to my belief, not backed up by science, that as humans, we
> needed to detect the direction of the lion/cheetah before it got too
> close to us, and that made proper phase detection critical to avoid
> being lunch.
>
> Yet the usual measurements of hi-fi focus
pfarrell;614185 Wrote:
> On 02/27/2011 10:31 AM, Daverz wrote:[color=blue]
> You can find studies that show that smoking tobacco is not bad for
> you.
>
I don't see the relevance to phase audibility studies.
>
> Phase is how you know where the lion/tiger is, or the crack of a
> broken
> piece
magiccarpetride;613824 Wrote:
>
> One thing that caught my attention is how pretty much everyone kept
> insisting that speaker positioning and room treatment (even EQ-ing) are
> the most important things in achieving amazing sound quality.
By far the biggest improvements in the sound of my syst
On 02/27/2011 10:31 AM, Daverz wrote:
> I've read about studies that show we're not that sensitive to phase. I
> could try to find a reference.
You can find studies that show that smoking tobacco is not bad for you.
Phase is how you know where the lion/tiger is, or the crack of a broken
piece o
pfarrell;614064 Wrote:
>
> Yet the usual measurements of hi-fi focuses instead on frequency.
> http://www.pfarrell.com/
I've read about studies that show we're not that sensitive to phase. I
could try to find a reference.
Most speakers are not designed for time coherence (with a few current
darrenyeats;614171 Wrote:
> I see it that way too. I think loudspeaker sound dispersion matters but
> not in the sense of mimicking instruments exactly.
> Darren
I agree. There isn't a domestic speaker that can even accurately
reproduce the visceral roar of a Marshall stack or a Hammond organ,
n
Phil Leigh;614133 Wrote:
> Well, you are only ever going to get the latter :-)
I see it that way too. I think loudspeaker dispersion matters but not
in the sense of mimicking instruments exactly.
Darren
--
darrenyeats
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm
darrenyeats;614116 Wrote:
> I think the real question is, do you want the sound of a trumpet in your
> room (in which case the comparative dispersion of the loudspeaker and
> the trumpet are important) or the sound of the trumpet in the recording
> venue (in which case, we can use the phase infor
I think the real question is, do you want the sound of a trumpet in your
room (in which case the comparative dispersion of the loudspeaker and
the trumpet are important) or the sound of the trumpet in the recording
venue (in this case, we can use the phase information encoded in two
channels to at
On 27/02/11 02:43, mlsstl wrote:
>
> pfarrell;614074 Wrote:
>> This opinion is not backed by facts. The whole trumpet vibrates. Sound
>> is not a point source from some mythical point in the bell. Rather the
>> bell and tubing resonate with the notes. Its not the breath of the
>> player that come
pfarrell;614074 Wrote:
> This opinion is not backed by facts. The whole trumpet vibrates. Sound
> is not a point source from some mythical point in the bell. Rather the
> bell and tubing resonate with the notes. Its not the breath of the
> player that comes rushing out of the bell. The breath vib
On 02/26/2011 07:12 PM, mlsstl wrote:
> However, a trumpet played in the same room sends most of its sound
> directly forward.
This opinion is not backed by facts. The whole trumpet vibrates. Sound
is not a point source from some mythical point in the bell. Rather the
bell and tubing resonate wit
Robin Bowes;614069 Wrote:
> I'm not disagreeing with your general outlook here, but...
>
> The stereo recording process captures the nuances of the environment
> in
> which it was recorded. A good stereo recording through a reasonable
> quality reproduction system sounds awesome. I have a record
On 27/02/11 00:51, Pat Farrell wrote:
> On 02/26/2011 05:49 PM, Kal Rubinson wrote:
>> OTOH, our auditory system has evolved for the signal
>> detection skills needed for survival. These include distinguishing a
>> significant signal from the background and localizing it. Notice how
>> you can r
On 27/02/11 00:12, mlsstl wrote:
>
> Any recording is going to capture sound from only one perspective. And,
> any speaker you have in your room, is going to radiate only in one
> fashion. It has no ability to change its radiation pattern to vary with
> each instrument.
>
> Similarly, arbitrary d
On 02/26/2011 05:49 PM, Kal Rubinson wrote:
> OTOH, our auditory system has evolved for the signal
> detection skills needed for survival. These include distinguishing a
> significant signal from the background and localizing it. Notice how
> you can recognize a familiar voice on the limited ban
I think people don't realize just how difficult it would be to have a
perfect replication of live music through any practical home audio
system.
Consider playing a violin in someone's living room. The strings and
f-holes point forward and up and slightly to one direction. However,
the violin bod
Mnyb;613990 Wrote:
> Yes ofcourse, I was just thinking that the shear size of an acoustical
> change was more disorientating...Yes, that is so. OTOH, our auditory system
> has evolved for the signal
detection skills needed for survival. These include distinguishing a
significant signal from t
magiccarpetride;613824 Wrote:
> A lot of audiophiles seem to be willing to expend a lot of effort in
> fighting this awful digital glare at the wrong end -- by playing with
> the EQ, by placing speakers in different formations, and by treating
> the listening room for minimizing various artifacts
And yes phil is rigth the recording overlays it's acoustic over your own
or vice versa , I use Meridian DRC in the bass <300 hz M does not
believe that it works any good in higher freq.. pre echo and stuff and
in higher frequencies you can mentally separate direct and reflected
sound and excessiv
It's important to attack the issue at both ends. Quality at the front
end, and quality at the end.
Take ANY system of carefully selected components, and put them in a bad
acoustic environment.See what happens.
Room acoustics will make or break ANY system in my experience, and
you've all he
Kal Rubinson;613968 Wrote:
> Those adaptive mechanisms apply to all listening and that certainly
> includes the more subtle colorations and distortions of electronics.
> In other words, it does not apply any more to the listening environment
> than it does to anything in the audio chain.
Yes of
duke43j;613974 Wrote:
> Why is it that you can play a real instrument in your living room or
> your kitchen and it still sounds like a real instrument?
>
> By adding acoustic treatment to our listening room are we trying to
> recreate the dead sound of the recording studio? In the case of a
> s
duke43j;613974 Wrote:
> Why is it that you can play a real instrument in your living room or
> your kitchen and it still sounds like a real instrument?
Maybe because it IS a real instrument? ;)
Try playing in your loo, I bet it sounds different to your living room.
--
johann
---
Mnyb;613889 Wrote:
> Also the brain is very adaptive, you get used to your listening
> environment even the most cross errors.
> I bet that even the most seasoned sound engineer can loose his edge in
> unfamiliar acoustics.
Why is it that you can play a real instrument in your living room or
you
Mnyb;613906 Wrote:
> I just wanted to sharpen my reasoning against the audiphile obsession
> with the little things and just ignore the big picture.I think we can agree
> on that.
--
Kal Rubinson
Kal Rubinson's Profile:
Mnyb;613889 Wrote:
> Also the brain is very adaptive, you get used to your listening
> environment even the most cross errors.
> I bet that even the most seasoned sound engineer can loose his edge in
> unfamiliar acoustics.Those adaptive mechanisms apply to all listening and
> that certainly
inc
darrenyeats;613903 Wrote:
> Everything has its place. You can't fix electronic distortion with
> acoustics. You can't fix room flutter with a better DAC. You can't fix
> group delay or lack of dynamic range with speaker positioning. You
> can't fix boomy bass by reducing jitter.
>
> Your ears do
Everything has its place. You can't fix electronic distortion with
acoustics. You can't fix room flutter with a better DAC. You can't fix
group delay or lack of dynamic range with speaker positioning. You
can't fix boomy bass by reducing jitter.
Your ears don't like distortion and they don't care
Also the brain is very adaptive, you get used to your listening
environment even the most cross errors.
I bet that even the most seasoned sound engineer can loose his edge in
unfamiliar acoustics.
--
Mnyb
Main hifi: Touch + C
michael123;613880 Wrote:
> Speakers, amplification and the room - are working together. Standing
> waves, comb filtering, reflections, excessive reverberation and echo,
> bass boosts as big as 10db - all this is quite common in typical setup.
> And it is noise..
>
> Good source is important, but
magiccarpetride;613824 Wrote:
>
> A lot of audiophiles seem to be willing to expend a lot of effort in
> fighting this awful digital glare at the wrong end -- by playing with
> the EQ, by placing speakers in different formations, and by treating
> the listening room for minimizing various artifa
Also be carefull when choosing speakers the popular missconception is
that resolution = a lot of treble and to much upper midrange ( presence
band ).
This is a trend i noticed the last decade some speaker brands newer
models is actually worse.
They may soud more " exciting" with good recordings
magiccarpetride;613824 Wrote:
> It's basically 'garbage in, garbage out'. Before we focus on speaker
> placements and room treatment, let's first make sure that we have
> solidified our signal at its source.GIGO, indeed. However, if you measure
> the pollution by standards like
signal distortio
I've been recently spending some time with several audiophile friends
and acquaintances, talking shop, comparing notes, exchanging tall audio
stories.
One thing that caught my attention is how pretty much everyone kept
insisting that speaker positioning and room treatment (even EQ-ing) are
the mo
48 matches
Mail list logo
