loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 08:15:20 +0000
Ian Bell wrote:

Of course the 'pure physics approach' is nonsense anyhow when it
comes to real life.

Physics of course is not nonsense because it aids our understanding of
what is going on.

Yeah but its useless in terms of getting a listening space 'just so' for
now (until we can get some kind of realtime DSP system to 'tune' the
room continually...)

Try this one to see the problems with actually putting a *human*
into the listening space, its fun.


Absolutely. The least understood and most variable element in the
audio chain is the human ear and the brain it is connected to yet it
is the most oft quoted measuring device by so called audiophiles.
Give me good old consistent repeatable physics any day.

I wasnt talking about the ear. the effect of the above experiment
demonstrates the audio characteristics of a room can vary dramatically
just be putting the bags of water (humans) in different places.

Try it, its fun. you get a sort of 'crystalline' sound that varies
delicately depending on where you are in the room at the time. Rather
like being in a cave of huge resonating crystals (I imagine, never
having been in such a cave).

--
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
 

Ian Molton wrote:

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 08:15:20 +0000
Ian Bell wrote:

Of course the 'pure physics approach' is nonsense anyhow when it
comes to real life.

Physics of course is not nonsense because it aids our understanding of
what is going on.

Yeah but its useless in terms of getting a listening space 'just so' for
now (until we can get some kind of realtime DSP system to 'tune' the
room continually...)

On the contrary, it is essential in arranging the basic room acoustics to
give the best possible listening environment within the constraints
imposed.

Try this one to see the problems with actually putting a *human*
into the listening space, its fun.


Absolutely. The least understood and most variable element in the
audio chain is the human ear and the brain it is connected to yet it
is the most oft quoted measuring device by so called audiophiles.
Give me good old consistent repeatable physics any day.

I wasnt talking about the ear. the effect of the above experiment
demonstrates the audio characteristics of a room can vary dramatically
just be putting the bags of water (humans) in different places.



It just demosntrates the room acoustics are not well controlled.

Ian

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

Ian Molton wrote:

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 08:15:20 +0000
Ian Bell wrote:

Of course the 'pure physics approach' is nonsense anyhow when it
comes to real life.

Physics of course is not nonsense because it aids our understanding of
what is going on.

Yeah but its useless in terms of getting a listening space 'just so' for
now (until we can get some kind of realtime DSP system to 'tune' the
room continually...)

On the contrary, it is essential in arranging the basic room acoustics to
give the best possible listening environment within the constraints
imposed.

Try this one to see the problems with actually putting a *human*
into the listening space, its fun.


Absolutely. The least understood and most variable element in the
audio chain is the human ear and the brain it is connected to yet it
is the most oft quoted measuring device by so called audiophiles.
Give me good old consistent repeatable physics any day.

I wasnt talking about the ear. the effect of the above experiment
demonstrates the audio characteristics of a room can vary dramatically
just be putting the bags of water (humans) in different places.



It just demosntrates the room acoustics are not well controlled.

Ian

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 20:33:02 +0000, Ian Bell
wrote:

Ian Molton wrote:

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 08:51:45 +0000 (GMT)
Jim Lesurf wrote:

It *is* worth it if you can manage to get a clear image. Once achieved
the
value becomes evident. :-)

Indeed ;-)

The problem is that really good stereo imaging
can be hard to obtain, hence is perhaps rarely experienced from
domestic 'stereo' systems.

Its easy to obtain a stunning stereo image... wear headphones ;-)

But is it accurate. Unfortunately most current material is designed to be
played thru two spaced speakers and gives quite different results in
headphones. The most convincing stereo effect I ever heard was a
recording made with a crossed pair of figure of eight ribbon mics played
thru headphones.

A crossed pair of ribbons *still* gives the best imaging this side of
a soundfield mic.

Blumlein rules, OK.

Ian

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 20:33:02 +0000, Ian Bell
wrote:

Ian Molton wrote:

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 08:51:45 +0000 (GMT)
Jim Lesurf wrote:

It *is* worth it if you can manage to get a clear image. Once achieved
the
value becomes evident. :-)

Indeed ;-)

The problem is that really good stereo imaging
can be hard to obtain, hence is perhaps rarely experienced from
domestic 'stereo' systems.

Its easy to obtain a stunning stereo image... wear headphones ;-)

But is it accurate. Unfortunately most current material is designed to be
played thru two spaced speakers and gives quite different results in
headphones. The most convincing stereo effect I ever heard was a
recording made with a crossed pair of figure of eight ribbon mics played
thru headphones.

A crossed pair of ribbons *still* gives the best imaging this side of
a soundfield mic.

Blumlein rules, OK.

Ian

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 19:58:10 +0000
Ian Bell wrote:

Yeah but its useless in terms of getting a listening space 'just so'
for now (until we can get some kind of realtime DSP system to 'tune'
the room continually...)

On the contrary, it is essential in arranging the basic room acoustics
to give the best possible listening environment within the constraints
imposed.

Except that unless you are planning a new building, or have a big wad of
cash to re-design your room, you're stuck with the walls and furnishings
you already have.

Sure, you could build an acoustically neutral room with big pointy
spikes all over the walls, and position everything so that there just
the one perfect listening spot... but thats well beyond most peoples
budgets...

It just demosntrates the room acoustics are not well controlled.

Unless you are proposing a rom whos walls are able to flex and move to
change the characteristics as people walk around in it, I dont see what
you plan to do about it.

--
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 Sat, 15 Nov 2003 19:58:10 +0000
Ian Bell wrote:

Yeah but its useless in terms of getting a listening space 'just so'
for now (until we can get some kind of realtime DSP system to 'tune'
the room continually...)

On the contrary, it is essential in arranging the basic room acoustics
to give the best possible listening environment within the constraints
imposed.

Except that unless you are planning a new building, or have a big wad of
cash to re-design your room, you're stuck with the walls and furnishings
you already have.

Sure, you could build an acoustically neutral room with big pointy
spikes all over the walls, and position everything so that there just
the one perfect listening spot... but thats well beyond most peoples
budgets...

It just demosntrates the room acoustics are not well controlled.

Unless you are proposing a rom whos walls are able to flex and move to
change the characteristics as people walk around in it, I dont see what
you plan to do about it.

--
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 ,
harrogate wrote:
Another strange point: speakers with two drivers almost always produce a
better and more sharply defined stereo image than those with three
drivers. Try a LS3/5a against a Spendor BC1 and you'll see what I mean.

But the centres of the drivers in a BC1 are further apart than on a 3/5a
- if you believe the dual concentric theory. Also, *in general* the
smaller the speaker overall, the better the image. Don't know where this
leaves the ESL57, except of course that it doesn't have a baffle to
diffuse the image.

Mounting any speaker flush in a rack etc as they do in some TV production
control rooms for appearance really does mess up the imaging.

--
*Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

In article ,
harrogate wrote:
Another strange point: speakers with two drivers almost always produce a
better and more sharply defined stereo image than those with three
drivers. Try a LS3/5a against a Spendor BC1 and you'll see what I mean.

But the centres of the drivers in a BC1 are further apart than on a 3/5a
- if you believe the dual concentric theory. Also, *in general* the
smaller the speaker overall, the better the image. Don't know where this
leaves the ESL57, except of course that it doesn't have a baffle to
diffuse the image.

Mounting any speaker flush in a rack etc as they do in some TV production
control rooms for appearance really does mess up the imaging.

--
*Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

In article ,
Ian Molton wrote:
Its easy to obtain a stunning stereo image... wear headphones ;-)

But this is a fallacy. You can't position sounds accurately with
headphones as you can with speakers.

--
*The first rule of holes: If you are in one, stop digging!

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

In article ,
Ian Molton wrote:
Its easy to obtain a stunning stereo image... wear headphones ;-)

But this is a fallacy. You can't position sounds accurately with
headphones as you can with speakers.

--
*The first rule of holes: If you are in one, stop digging!

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
Ian Molton wrote:
Its easy to obtain a stunning stereo image... wear headphones ;-)

But this is a fallacy. You can't position sounds accurately with
headphones as you can with speakers.



I think you got that the wrong way round.

Ian

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
Ian Molton wrote:
Its easy to obtain a stunning stereo image... wear headphones ;-)

But this is a fallacy. You can't position sounds accurately with
headphones as you can with speakers.



I think you got that the wrong way round.

Ian

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

Ian Molton wrote:

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 19:58:10 +0000
Ian Bell wrote:

Yeah but its useless in terms of getting a listening space 'just so'
for now (until we can get some kind of realtime DSP system to 'tune'
the room continually...)

On the contrary, it is essential in arranging the basic room acoustics
to give the best possible listening environment within the constraints
imposed.

Except that unless you are planning a new building, or have a big wad of
cash to re-design your room, you're stuck with the walls and furnishings
you already have.

Sure, you could build an acoustically neutral room with big pointy
spikes all over the walls, and position everything so that there just
the one perfect listening spot... but thats well beyond most peoples
budgets...

Not at all, there are some simple basic things you can do that will
significantly improve the acoustics of a room - people with home studios do
it all the time. And anyway, for all those audiophiles who spend thousands
on their gear, whats a few more to get the best sound

It just demosntrates the room acoustics are not well controlled.

Unless you are proposing a rom whos walls are able to flex and move to
change the characteristics as people walk around in it, I dont see what
you plan to do about it.

You miss the point. It would be hard, expensive and probably expensive to
get good listening conditions everywhere in the room. But to significantly
improve much of it is not too hard.

Ian

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

Ian Molton wrote:

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 19:58:10 +0000
Ian Bell wrote:

Yeah but its useless in terms of getting a listening space 'just so'
for now (until we can get some kind of realtime DSP system to 'tune'
the room continually...)

On the contrary, it is essential in arranging the basic room acoustics
to give the best possible listening environment within the constraints
imposed.

Except that unless you are planning a new building, or have a big wad of
cash to re-design your room, you're stuck with the walls and furnishings
you already have.

Sure, you could build an acoustically neutral room with big pointy
spikes all over the walls, and position everything so that there just
the one perfect listening spot... but thats well beyond most peoples
budgets...

Not at all, there are some simple basic things you can do that will
significantly improve the acoustics of a room - people with home studios do
it all the time. And anyway, for all those audiophiles who spend thousands
on their gear, whats a few more to get the best sound

It just demosntrates the room acoustics are not well controlled.

Unless you are proposing a rom whos walls are able to flex and move to
change the characteristics as people walk around in it, I dont see what
you plan to do about it.

You miss the point. It would be hard, expensive and probably expensive to
get good listening conditions everywhere in the room. But to significantly
improve much of it is not too hard.

Ian

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 19:58:46 +0000, Ian Bell
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 20:33:02 +0000, Ian Bell
wrote:

The most convincing stereo effect I ever heard was a
recording made with a crossed pair of figure of eight ribbon mics played
thru headphones.

A crossed pair of ribbons *still* gives the best imaging this side of
a soundfield mic.

Blumlein rules, OK.

Absolutely! Funny how the Laws of Physics haven't changed since the
'30s, despite the dedicated efforts of thousands of marketing men....
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 19:58:46 +0000, Ian Bell
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 20:33:02 +0000, Ian Bell
wrote:

The most convincing stereo effect I ever heard was a
recording made with a crossed pair of figure of eight ribbon mics played
thru headphones.

A crossed pair of ribbons *still* gives the best imaging this side of
a soundfield mic.

Blumlein rules, OK.

Absolutely! Funny how the Laws of Physics haven't changed since the
'30s, despite the dedicated efforts of thousands of marketing men....
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 01:44:16 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
wrote:

In article ,
harrogate wrote:
Another strange point: speakers with two drivers almost always produce a
better and more sharply defined stereo image than those with three
drivers. Try a LS3/5a against a Spendor BC1 and you'll see what I mean.

But the centres of the drivers in a BC1 are further apart than on a 3/5a
- if you believe the dual concentric theory. Also, *in general* the
smaller the speaker overall, the better the image. Don't know where this
leaves the ESL57, except of course that it doesn't have a baffle to
diffuse the image.

It also depends how old the BC1 is - the originals were two-ways. BTW,
Lowthers are essentially dual-concentric two-ways, and IME they don't
image worth a damn!

Mounting any speaker flush in a rack etc as they do in some TV production
control rooms for appearance really does mess up the imaging.

Some of the finest imaging I ever heard was from flush-mounted
speakers. Think about it - there *is* no diffraction smear from the
baffle in a flush-mounted speaker.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 01:44:16 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
wrote:

In article ,
harrogate wrote:
Another strange point: speakers with two drivers almost always produce a
better and more sharply defined stereo image than those with three
drivers. Try a LS3/5a against a Spendor BC1 and you'll see what I mean.

But the centres of the drivers in a BC1 are further apart than on a 3/5a
- if you believe the dual concentric theory. Also, *in general* the
smaller the speaker overall, the better the image. Don't know where this
leaves the ESL57, except of course that it doesn't have a baffle to
diffuse the image.

It also depends how old the BC1 is - the originals were two-ways. BTW,
Lowthers are essentially dual-concentric two-ways, and IME they don't
image worth a damn!

Mounting any speaker flush in a rack etc as they do in some TV production
control rooms for appearance really does mess up the imaging.

Some of the finest imaging I ever heard was from flush-mounted
speakers. Think about it - there *is* no diffraction smear from the
baffle in a flush-mounted speaker.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 01:47:34 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
wrote:

In article ,
Ian Molton wrote:
Its easy to obtain a stunning stereo image... wear headphones ;-)

But this is a fallacy. You can't position sounds accurately with
headphones as you can with speakers.

Oh, yes you can. Ever hear a BBC binaural broadcast? The realism is
quite stunning - so much so that if you turn your head, it can make
you nauseus as the world spins with you!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 01:47:34 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
wrote:

In article ,
Ian Molton wrote:
Its easy to obtain a stunning stereo image... wear headphones ;-)

But this is a fallacy. You can't position sounds accurately with
headphones as you can with speakers.

Oh, yes you can. Ever hear a BBC binaural broadcast? The realism is
quite stunning - so much so that if you turn your head, it can make
you nauseus as the world spins with you!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 01:47:34 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
wrote:

In article ,
Ian Molton wrote:
Its easy to obtain a stunning stereo image... wear headphones ;-)

But this is a fallacy. You can't position sounds accurately with
headphones as you can with speakers.

Oh, yes you can. Ever hear a BBC binaural broadcast? The realism is
quite stunning - so much so that if you turn your head, it can make
you nauseus as the world spins with you!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

I've not heard the BBC binaural broadcast but I have heard recordings made
via a Neumann dummy head system. I don't know how this compares with the
BBC's broadcasts ..but if its similar then I'd agree with Stewart.

Mike

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 01:47:34 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
wrote:

In article ,
Ian Molton wrote:
Its easy to obtain a stunning stereo image... wear headphones ;-)

But this is a fallacy. You can't position sounds accurately with
headphones as you can with speakers.

Oh, yes you can. Ever hear a BBC binaural broadcast? The realism is
quite stunning - so much so that if you turn your head, it can make
you nauseus as the world spins with you!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

I've not heard the BBC binaural broadcast but I have heard recordings made
via a Neumann dummy head system. I don't know how this compares with the
BBC's broadcasts ..but if its similar then I'd agree with Stewart.

Mike

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 01:47:34 +0000 (GMT)
Dave Plowman wrote:

Its easy to obtain a stunning stereo image... wear headphones ;-)

But this is a fallacy. You can't position sounds accurately with
headphones as you can with speakers.

say what?

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

The closest you could possibly get would be to split your head in half
and put sound proofing in there too.

--
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 01:47:34 +0000 (GMT)
Dave Plowman wrote:

Its easy to obtain a stunning stereo image... wear headphones ;-)

But this is a fallacy. You can't position sounds accurately with
headphones as you can with speakers.

say what?

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

The closest you could possibly get would be to split your head in half
and put sound proofing in there too.

--
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 07:41:45 +0000
Ian Bell wrote:

Sure, you could build an acoustically neutral room with big pointy
spikes all over the walls, and position everything so that there
just the one perfect listening spot... but thats well beyond most
peoples budgets...

Not at all, there are some simple basic things you can do that will
significantly improve the acoustics of a room - people with home
studios do it all the time.

Yeah, but its not exactly scientific is it?

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.

Same thing applied to the (in)famous kef speaker that worked FAR better
with a sock in its bass port...

--
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 07:41:45 +0000
Ian Bell wrote:

Sure, you could build an acoustically neutral room with big pointy
spikes all over the walls, and position everything so that there
just the one perfect listening spot... but thats well beyond most
peoples budgets...

Not at all, there are some simple basic things you can do that will
significantly improve the acoustics of a room - people with home
studios do it all the time.

Yeah, but its not exactly scientific is it?

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.

Same thing applied to the (in)famous kef speaker that worked FAR better
with a sock in its bass port...

--
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
 

Ian Molton wrote:

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 07:41:45 +0000
Ian Bell wrote:

Sure, you could build an acoustically neutral room with big pointy
spikes all over the walls, and position everything so that there
just the one perfect listening spot... but thats well beyond most
peoples budgets...

Not at all, there are some simple basic things you can do that will
significantly improve the acoustics of a room - people with home
studios do it all the time.

Yeah, but its not exactly scientific is it?

Yes it is


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?



Same thing applied to the (in)famous kef speaker that worked FAR better
with a sock in its bass port...


So it was a poorly designed speaker. Your point is what?

Ian

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

Ian Molton wrote:

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 07:41:45 +0000
Ian Bell wrote:

Sure, you could build an acoustically neutral room with big pointy
spikes all over the walls, and position everything so that there
just the one perfect listening spot... but thats well beyond most
peoples budgets...

Not at all, there are some simple basic things you can do that will
significantly improve the acoustics of a room - people with home
studios do it all the time.

Yeah, but its not exactly scientific is it?

Yes it is


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?



Same thing applied to the (in)famous kef speaker that worked FAR better
with a sock in its bass port...


So it was a poorly designed speaker. Your point is what?

Ian

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

In article ,
Ian Bell wrote:
But this is a fallacy. You can't position sounds accurately with
headphones as you can with speakers.



I think you got that the wrong way round.

Not at all. The ears rely on positioning things by more than just
different levels on left and right. Headphones remove this on a recording
made in the normal ways and balanced on loudspeakers.

Binaural recordings are designed to be listened to on headphones, but
these are not that common outside radio drama.

Of course, many domestic rooms have appalling acoustics for stereo due to
things like the current fashion for wood floors and minimal furnishings.
To really have good stereo imaging you need good speakers and a good room
- as near 'dead' as possible. Few have heard this, and it's an absolute
revelation.

--
*Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

In article ,
Ian Bell wrote:
But this is a fallacy. You can't position sounds accurately with
headphones as you can with speakers.



I think you got that the wrong way round.

Not at all. The ears rely on positioning things by more than just
different levels on left and right. Headphones remove this on a recording
made in the normal ways and balanced on loudspeakers.

Binaural recordings are designed to be listened to on headphones, but
these are not that common outside radio drama.

Of course, many domestic rooms have appalling acoustics for stereo due to
things like the current fashion for wood floors and minimal furnishings.
To really have good stereo imaging you need good speakers and a good room
- as near 'dead' as possible. Few have heard this, and it's an absolute
revelation.

--
*Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

Ian Molton wrote:

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 07:41:45 +0000

Same thing applied to the (in)famous kef speaker that worked FAR better
with a sock in its bass port...


Only if it's one of Dr. Bailey's long wool socks.
Which speaker was it anyway?

--
Roger.

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

Ian Molton wrote:

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 07:41:45 +0000

Same thing applied to the (in)famous kef speaker that worked FAR better
with a sock in its bass port...


Only if it's one of Dr. Bailey's long wool socks.
Which speaker was it anyway?

--
Roger.

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
Its easy to obtain a stunning stereo image... wear headphones ;-)

But this is a fallacy. You can't position sounds accurately with
headphones as you can with speakers.

Oh, yes you can. Ever hear a BBC binaural broadcast? The realism is
quite stunning - so much so that if you turn your head, it can make
you nauseus as the world spins with you!

I'm quite familiar with binaural, but it's pretty uncommon on commercial
recordings given its extremely limiting effects on modern production
techniques. It also doesn't IMHO give good compatibility with how most
listen - on speakers.

--
*Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
Its easy to obtain a stunning stereo image... wear headphones ;-)

But this is a fallacy. You can't position sounds accurately with
headphones as you can with speakers.

Oh, yes you can. Ever hear a BBC binaural broadcast? The realism is
quite stunning - so much so that if you turn your head, it can make
you nauseus as the world spins with you!

I'm quite familiar with binaural, but it's pretty uncommon on commercial
recordings given its extremely limiting effects on modern production
techniques. It also doesn't IMHO give good compatibility with how most
listen - on speakers.

--
*Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
It also depends how old the BC1 is - the originals were two-ways.

The original BBC design omitted the HF unit, but I doubt many of these are
around domestically. It also had a most noticeable mid range 'suck out'
which the BEEB favoured in those days.

--
*If you lived in your car, you'd be home by now *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
It also depends how old the BC1 is - the originals were two-ways.

The original BBC design omitted the HF unit, but I doubt many of these are
around domestically. It also had a most noticeable mid range 'suck out'
which the BEEB favoured in those days.

--
*If you lived in your car, you'd be home by now *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

In article ,
Ian Molton wrote:
But this is a fallacy. You can't position sounds accurately with
headphones as you can with speakers.

say what?

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.

The closest you could possibly get would be to split your head in half
and put sound proofing in there too.

It might give an impressive sound, but accurate it's not, unless special
recording techniques are employed specifically for headphones which then
degrades the result on speakers.

--
*I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

In article ,
Ian Molton wrote:
But this is a fallacy. You can't position sounds accurately with
headphones as you can with speakers.

say what?

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.

The closest you could possibly get would be to split your head in half
and put sound proofing in there too.

It might give an impressive sound, but accurate it's not, unless special
recording techniques are employed specifically for headphones which then
degrades the result on speakers.

--
*I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
Mounting any speaker flush in a rack etc as they do in some TV production
control rooms for appearance really does mess up the imaging.

Some of the finest imaging I ever heard was from flush-mounted
speakers. Think about it - there *is* no diffraction smear from the
baffle in a flush-mounted speaker.

We'll have to differ, then. I've never heard any flush mounted speakers
that compare to the same basic design free standing. Doesn't stop plenty
of recording studios fitting them, though. But the final positioning will
be done on near fields in this situation.

--
*What was the best thing before sliced bread? *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn