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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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