loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 13:30:23 +0000 (GMT)
Dave Plowman wrote:


two sonically independant drivers (ie. no sound leaks across from
one ear to the other)

But the ear positions sounds by more than just relative levels - and
this is lost on a conventional recording when listened to on
headphones.

I said nothing of what recording was to be used, only the reproduction
equipment.

Headphones will give a better stereo image than a pair of speakers, end
of story.

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
ketchup.

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 19:13:29 +0000 (GMT)
Dave Plowman wrote:

How?

Well, it measures the time a sound takes to reach each ear, for a
start.

I'd be impressed to see a speaker that can alter the time it takes for
the sound to reach your ear.

you're confusing the characteristics of the equipment and those of the
environment.

the delay is a factor of the environment, and nothing to do with wether
the equipment can reproduce a stereo image correctly.

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
ketchup.

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 19:13:29 +0000 (GMT)
Dave Plowman wrote:

How?

Well, it measures the time a sound takes to reach each ear, for a
start.

I'd be impressed to see a speaker that can alter the time it takes for
the sound to reach your ear.

you're confusing the characteristics of the equipment and those of the
environment.

the delay is a factor of the environment, and nothing to do with wether
the equipment can reproduce a stereo image correctly.

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
ketchup.

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 11:20:42 +0000
Ian Bell wrote:

Yeah, but its not exactly scientific is it?

Yes it is

Balls. well, perhaps it is scientific in a way - after all it is
deductive... however its not really quantifiable.

put the speaker where its 'scientifically accurate' in a room that
is not (even a little bit) and you could find it sounds terrible
until you move it 10cm further right, for no good reason.

Have you actually tried this or is it just supposition on your part?

yes. I never actually measured it to see if it was accurate, but I
hardly needed to. in the 'correct' place, it sounded awful - weak image,
muddy midrange. Bass was ok.

a few cm further over, and it was much better, bright and clear. very
noticeable for bass music especially, which just sounded 'flat' before.

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
ketchup.

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 11:20:42 +0000
Ian Bell wrote:

Yeah, but its not exactly scientific is it?

Yes it is

Balls. well, perhaps it is scientific in a way - after all it is
deductive... however its not really quantifiable.

put the speaker where its 'scientifically accurate' in a room that
is not (even a little bit) and you could find it sounds terrible
until you move it 10cm further right, for no good reason.

Have you actually tried this or is it just supposition on your part?

yes. I never actually measured it to see if it was accurate, but I
hardly needed to. in the 'correct' place, it sounded awful - weak image,
muddy midrange. Bass was ok.

a few cm further over, and it was much better, bright and clear. very
noticeable for bass music especially, which just sounded 'flat' before.

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
ketchup.

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 18:07:50 +0000
Ian Bell wrote:

I think the main problem is that most people don't have a dedicated
listening room, so is quite hard to balance the room's acoustics with
other uses or even try to place the loudspeakers in a better position.

Exactly.

Excuse me... that was my point.

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup.

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 18:07:50 +0000
Ian Bell wrote:

I think the main problem is that most people don't have a dedicated
listening room, so is quite hard to balance the room's acoustics with
other uses or even try to place the loudspeakers in a better position.

Exactly.

Excuse me... that was my point.

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup.

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

In article ,
Ian Bell wrote:
Well, it measures the time a sound takes to reach each ear, for a start.


Yes and the time differences are mirrored in the recording not in the
transducer used to reproduce the sound. Speakers or headphones, makes no
difference you still hear the time delays.

Then why is there a difference between binaural and coincident pair etc
when listened on headphones or speakers?

Besides, *most* 'pop' recordings are manufactured stereo where there are
no stereo mics.

I'd suggest you try and listen to decent speakers in a decent room. It's
chalk and cheese on most recodings. Of course headphones may well sound
better than poor speakers in a poor room, but that's not the point I'm
making.

--
*Ever stop to think and forget to start again?

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

In article ,
Ian Bell wrote:
Well, it measures the time a sound takes to reach each ear, for a start.


Yes and the time differences are mirrored in the recording not in the
transducer used to reproduce the sound. Speakers or headphones, makes no
difference you still hear the time delays.

Then why is there a difference between binaural and coincident pair etc
when listened on headphones or speakers?

Besides, *most* 'pop' recordings are manufactured stereo where there are
no stereo mics.

I'd suggest you try and listen to decent speakers in a decent room. It's
chalk and cheese on most recodings. Of course headphones may well sound
better than poor speakers in a poor room, but that's not the point I'm
making.

--
*Ever stop to think and forget to start again?

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

In article ,
Ian Molton wrote:
You cant *garauntee* front-back information with only two speakers in
any case, wether mounted on your head or 8 feet either side of you.

Yes you can, given decent speakers and a decent room.

you can play fancy timing and phase tricks but its not the same, and
depends on your room being 'right' too.

I've never denied that a poor room etc may sound worse than headphones,
but that's hardly the point. Why bother with speakers at all if the room
is so poor?

--
*Black holes are where God divided by zero *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn