loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 00:57:13 +0000 (GMT)
Dave Plowman wrote:

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

A sound which emanates from somewhere between two speakers will arrive
at*both* ears with a timing difference. Not so with headphones -
unless you introduce some form of 'bleed' between channels which has
been tried with limited success.

Ok, now you've just gone plain nutty.

theres no need to 'bleed' any amount of signal from one track to
another, simply PLAY the signal later on the same channel.

I never claimed you could convert a speaker-optimised recording to a
headphone-optimised one and vice-versa.

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.

Not so. There is no delay when listening on headphones.

of course not, the driver is next to your ear. the delay should be on
the recording.

--
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 Mon, 17 Nov 2003 00:51:33 +0000 (GMT)
Dave Plowman wrote:

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

You ever tried panning a mic across a soundstage while listening on cans
and then loudspeakers? I'd say you haven't.

Funnily enough, no. I have played recordings including that sort of thing though.

what *IS* your point?

ignoring 'fake' front/rear imaging, and considering straight stereo imaging, what exactly IS your point?

as long as the signal reaches your ears with the same phase, volume, and timing as the original then headphones MUST clearly give the better stereo image since the right ear wont hear the left speaker and ice-versa.

with headphones, the left ear ONLY hears the left track and vice-versa. with a recording made correctly, the right channel will actually contain some of the left channel audio, albeit at reduced amplitude and with slightly larger delay to the left (and vice-versa).

with speakers, the two channels should ideally contain as little of 'each others' information as possible since the right ear will hear the left speaker as well as the right and vice-versa, unless you manages to place your body in the middle of an infinite baffle between the speakers...

--
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 Mon, 17 Nov 2003 00:51:33 +0000 (GMT)
Dave Plowman wrote:

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

You ever tried panning a mic across a soundstage while listening on cans
and then loudspeakers? I'd say you haven't.

Funnily enough, no. I have played recordings including that sort of thing though.

what *IS* your point?

ignoring 'fake' front/rear imaging, and considering straight stereo imaging, what exactly IS your point?

as long as the signal reaches your ears with the same phase, volume, and timing as the original then headphones MUST clearly give the better stereo image since the right ear wont hear the left speaker and ice-versa.

with headphones, the left ear ONLY hears the left track and vice-versa. with a recording made correctly, the right channel will actually contain some of the left channel audio, albeit at reduced amplitude and with slightly larger delay to the left (and vice-versa).

with speakers, the two channels should ideally contain as little of 'each others' information as possible since the right ear will hear the left speaker as well as the right and vice-versa, unless you manages to place your body in the middle of an infinite baffle between the speakers...

--
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
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

It has a lot to do with the positions of the HF and LF drivers
and
your listening position. These result in errors which can muddy
the
stereo sound field. The only real solution is to use dual
concentric
speakers.

Interesting. I'd suspect most people wouldn't immediately think of
the
Quad ESL63's as 'dual concentric'. :-) More like 'multiple
quasi-concentric' or 'phased array', though. They image quite
well,
though.

In some senses this is not surprising since they have little LF
response
and most positional information is in the higher frequencies.

Depends upon what you call "little LF response". In my listening room
their
output is only about 3dB at 30-35Hz. This is better than many
cone-and-box
speakers. :-)


You can hear 3dB?? You must have super-human hearing Jim. ;)

(I assume you meant 3dB down at 30-35Hz. :) )

Dunc

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

It has a lot to do with the positions of the HF and LF drivers
and
your listening position. These result in errors which can muddy
the
stereo sound field. The only real solution is to use dual
concentric
speakers.

Interesting. I'd suspect most people wouldn't immediately think of
the
Quad ESL63's as 'dual concentric'. :-) More like 'multiple
quasi-concentric' or 'phased array', though. They image quite
well,
though.

In some senses this is not surprising since they have little LF
response
and most positional information is in the higher frequencies.

Depends upon what you call "little LF response". In my listening room
their
output is only about 3dB at 30-35Hz. This is better than many
cone-and-box
speakers. :-)


You can hear 3dB?? You must have super-human hearing Jim. ;)

(I assume you meant 3dB down at 30-35Hz. :) )

Dunc

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

Dave Plowman wrote:

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?

Becuase binaural recordings are *designed* to be heard on phones not
speakers.


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

I know and I agree they are processed to sound best on two speakers.

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.

Your original point was that headphones have some inherent limitation that
means thay cannot create as good a stereo image as headphones. This is
wrong. I agree material designed for two speakers sounds best on them but
that is not a deficiency on the part of headphones. Equally binaural
recordings sound better on headphones.

Ian

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

Dave Plowman wrote:

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?

Becuase binaural recordings are *designed* to be heard on phones not
speakers.


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

I know and I agree they are processed to sound best on two speakers.

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.

Your original point was that headphones have some inherent limitation that
means thay cannot create as good a stereo image as headphones. This is
wrong. I agree material designed for two speakers sounds best on them but
that is not a deficiency on the part of headphones. Equally binaural
recordings sound better on headphones.

Ian

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

Ian Molton wrote:

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.


So how did you determine this scientifically correct place, especially if as
you say 'its not really quantifiable'? ;-)

Ian

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

Ian Molton wrote:

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.


So how did you determine this scientifically correct place, especially if as
you say 'its not really quantifiable'? ;-)

Ian

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
Ian Molton wrote:
I'd be impressed to see a speaker that can alter the time it takes for
the sound to reach your ear.

A sound which emanates from somewhere between two speakers will arrive at
*both* ears with a timing difference. Not so with headphones - unless you
introduce some form of 'bleed' between channels which has been tried with
limited success.


This is a common fallacy. This is why speakers sound worse than headphones.
The ear uses this imformation to determine that the sound is really coming
from two point sources, the speakers. headphones do not have this
limitation.

Ian