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