Ian Molton wrote:

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 09:24:23 -0500
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

With non-concentric
designs, the two sound sources are separated by an appreciable distance,
and this distance interacts with the crossover to produce lobing in the
range where the driver's output overlaps. With a dual concentric design,
the two sources can be made to be very close or to even coincide.

The theory is fine. its the practice that seems to be the problem IME.

IMHO the proctice is fine. Tannoy dual concentrics have been used in pro
studios for over 40 years and they still sound wonderful.

Ian

Wally wrote:

Jim Lesurf wrote:

Makes me wonder if all that stereo imaging stuff is worth the bother
(not that I bother, especially).

It *is* worth it if you can manage to get a clear image. Once
achieved the value becomes evident. :-) The problem is that really
good stereo imaging can be hard to obtain, hence is perhaps rarely
experienced from domestic 'stereo' systems.

I don't doubt that there are good and bad examples of imaging, and that
improvments can be made. :-) It was more that there seem to be physical
limits imposed by the wavelengths of certain frequencies, and the
consquent spacing of peaks and troughs - like the idea that a given
frequency can result in a peak at one ear and a trough at the other.


This is basic physics. With two sources of the same signal at say 1KHz
peaks and troughs can occur at intervals of the wavelength. Given the
speed of sound is aboutt 100ft per second, then for 1KHz this is just a
foot.

Ian

Wally wrote:

Jim Lesurf wrote:

Makes me wonder if all that stereo imaging stuff is worth the bother
(not that I bother, especially).

It *is* worth it if you can manage to get a clear image. Once
achieved the value becomes evident. :-) The problem is that really
good stereo imaging can be hard to obtain, hence is perhaps rarely
experienced from domestic 'stereo' systems.

I don't doubt that there are good and bad examples of imaging, and that
improvments can be made. :-) It was more that there seem to be physical
limits imposed by the wavelengths of certain frequencies, and the
consquent spacing of peaks and troughs - like the idea that a given
frequency can result in a peak at one ear and a trough at the other.


This is basic physics. With two sources of the same signal at say 1KHz
peaks and troughs can occur at intervals of the wavelength. Given the
speed of sound is aboutt 100ft per second, then for 1KHz this is just a
foot.

Ian

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.

Ian

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.

Ian

Ian Bell wrote:

This is basic physics. With two sources of the same signal at say
1KHz peaks and troughs can occur at intervals of the wavelength.

Agreed.


Given the speed of sound is aboutt 100ft per second, then for 1KHz
this is just a foot.

I think you mean 1000ft/s. :-)

Yup, I tried it at 1, 5 and 10KHz, and noticed the difference in spacing.


--
Wally
www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.

Ian Bell wrote:

This is basic physics. With two sources of the same signal at say
1KHz peaks and troughs can occur at intervals of the wavelength.

Agreed.


Given the speed of sound is aboutt 100ft per second, then for 1KHz
this is just a foot.

I think you mean 1000ft/s. :-)

Yup, I tried it at 1, 5 and 10KHz, and noticed the difference in spacing.


--
Wally
www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.

Wally wrote:

Ian Bell wrote:

This is basic physics. With two sources of the same signal at say
1KHz peaks and troughs can occur at intervals of the wavelength.

Agreed.


Given the speed of sound is aboutt 100ft per second, then for 1KHz
this is just a foot.

I think you mean 1000ft/s. :-)

Yup, brain ran ahead of fingers again ;-)

Ian

Wally wrote:

Ian Bell wrote:

This is basic physics. With two sources of the same signal at say
1KHz peaks and troughs can occur at intervals of the wavelength.

Agreed.


Given the speed of sound is aboutt 100ft per second, then for 1KHz
this is just a foot.

I think you mean 1000ft/s. :-)

Yup, brain ran ahead of fingers again ;-)

Ian

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 20:29:13 +0000
Ian Bell wrote:

The theory is fine. its the practice that seems to be the problem IME.

IMHO the proctice is fine. Tannoy dual concentrics have been used in pro
studios for over 40 years and they still sound wonderful.

To each their own, I guess.

Im still very happy with my Radfords...

--
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.