| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Horn-Loaded Speakers» Aporia - Silbatone Acoustics speaker (108 posts, 6 pages)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 5 of 6 (108 items) Select Pages:  « First ... « 2 3 4 5 6 »
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  Truth stretched out via Feastrex prism...  Goodbye Chris Witmer...  Audio Discussions  Forum     26  247098  01-21-2006
  »  New  Western Electric reproduces 0Hz + some literature…..  Re-set...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     2  45827  07-24-2006
  »  New  Learn to differentiate between Imaging and Soundstage...  Learn to differentiate between Imaging and Soundstage....  Audio For Dummies ™  Forum     0  12595  03-07-2007
  »  New  Klangfilm: actual knowledge is better then fetish imagi..  Klangfilm Kl51...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     18  185924  03-15-2007
  »  New  The unintended consequences of binaural things in Hi-Fi..  Re: Binaural -- or what ever the case was......  Playback Listening  Forum     1  24438  08-04-2009
  »  New  Munich High End 2010..  The retarded open baffle...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     39  296671  05-16-2010
  »  New  The CES's 2011 horns..  Reviewers and table radios...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     21  144859  01-07-2011
  »  New  A Moscow setup with Horns/Lowther..  A new reiteration of the Moscow setup....  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     33  282178  02-27-2011
  »  New  A new kid in the block: Sadurni Acoustics..  Axpona 2015...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     21  108118  08-22-2011
  »  New  Aries Cerat Contendo - the newest "fat" kid i..  It is very unfortunate then...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     5  36670  09-08-2011
02-09-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,734
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 81
Post ID: 9685
Reply to: 9683
Point source installations have a distinct character.
fiogf49gjkf0d
 drdna wrote:
Point source installations have a distinct character.
I do not think that the point source installations have a distinct character because they are point source. They have distinct character because they are always shitty singe-driver souses. It is not geometry but the conceptually faulty premises, unless a mediocre and compromised result is accepted as satisfactory.

The caT


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
02-09-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Joe Roberts
Posts 48
Joined on 01-12-2009

Post #: 82
Post ID: 9686
Reply to: 9683
A thorny issue
fiogf49gjkf0d


But we have all heard the difference, with standard stereo installations, where the bass comes from down below and the highs come from up above.


I suspect that much of this effect arises from the perceptual disjunction caused by using sources of radically different type and character, accentuating the differences.

If you use a driver that goes from say, 50 hz to 5k...I'll choose a nice vintage WE 728B for Romy's benefit, do you still get this upper/lower effect? I think not.

How much of this localization effect is from woofer leakage above the crossover point, where signals do become more directional...and the interaction between the two drivers straddling the crossover point? Drivers do not shut off precisely at crossover frequencies.

What happens when drivers have different radiation patterns at the same frequency, even independent of the obvious problem of interference between two discretely-spaced sources for the same signal, further subjected to various phase and level shifts brought on by mechanical and electrical rolloff behaviors?

Hard to generalize, I'd say. An I think it is hard to speculate on theory exactly what causes drivers to stand out in the mix. This is why I always tend to argue for examination of specific cases....what works and why, what doesn't work and why.

Beyond that, in accordance with taste, physiological variation, and learned preferences, what works for one listener might not for another. This is not a matter of pure physics.

Would it then be better to optimize the drivers to be dissimilar from one another: to match the radiation patterns of instruments traditionally used within each frequency range the drivers cover?


In concept, this makes sense, no? But then there is the other question of character or texture or whatever you want to call it. This is not a simple issue of frequency response. To the extent that it is a frequency phenomenon, it is a densely complex one.

All I am saying is that the notion of frequency dependent dispersion as raised by Jean Michel's paper is a relevant and often ignored or forgotten factor in system design. It may be that excessive narrowing is more obvious perceptually that excessive widening, hence more complaints about sharp beaming than the obverse.

This topic brings with it the complicated issue of harmonics. A musical note is composed of a fundamental and various harmonics, with different radiation patters at each harmonic. Do we understand how our ears process the cues we get from this complex stimulus?

I would add this dispersion characteristic to what I am calling "character" as a factor worth consideration in design and evaluation of multi-way systems.

Dispersion is also a vital factor in single driver applications. Not all single-drivers fit the same metric and this was a major engineering point for design of various cone profiles... yet another reason why it is silly to lump all single-driver implementations into one category.

My sense is that the whole picture defies analysis, except in reductionistic, partial, and idealized tactical ways. Listening is not only the best way but probably the only valid way to gauge success in driver system matching, particularly when complex musical signals are in play.

02-09-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
drdna
San Francisco, California
Posts 512
Joined on 10-29-2005

Post #: 83
Post ID: 9687
Reply to: 9686
MTM and vertical hearing
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Romy the Cat wrote:
However, in audio the coordinate system is not geometry but hearing and human hearing is not equally-dimensional. Humans, juts because the position of ears on heard have much higher sensitivity to horizontal sound source hen to vertical sound source. There is not such a sing as point source but there an array of point sources
A valid point but it has nothing at all to do with the reality of speaker installations where drivers are several inches wide and the distance from top to bottom is measured in feet. In the real world, the concept of the point source still has validity.


 Romy the Cat wrote:
I do not think that the point source installations have a distinct character because they are point source. They have distinct character because they are always shitty singe-driver souses. It is not geometry but the conceptually faulty premises, unless a mediocre and compromised result is accepted as satisfactory.
Not at all. I have taken two way speakers (tweeter+ two midrange) and moved the drivers from TMM to MTM D-Appolito configuration. There is a big difference in the sound presentation, which I attribute to the point source concept.

 Joe Roberts wrote:
I suspect that much of this effect arises from the perceptual disjunction caused by using sources of radically different type and character, accentuating the differences.
Likewise, I disagree based on my experiments as mentioned above. In any case, this "perceptual disjunction" might be heard as "instruments not sounding correct," etc. I am just talking about the simple fact that I can differentiate vertical positions when I listen to something. It is no great leap to say that a speaker that essentially totally ignores this fact will have a sonic signature reflecting this.

 Joe Roberts wrote:
All I am saying is that the notion of frequency dependent dispersion as raised by Jean Michel's paper is a relevant and often ignored or forgotten factor in system design. It may be that excessive narrowing is more obvious perceptually that excessive widening, hence more complaints about sharp beaming than the obverse. This topic brings with it the complicated issue of harmonics. A musical note is composed of a fundamental and various harmonics, with different radiation patters at each harmonic. Do we understand how our ears process the cues we get from this complex stimulus?
Reasonable enough, but I would again say that we should concentrate on the fundamentals first, and that a theoretical speaker that achieves esoteric goals at the expense of more fundamental ones may be suboptimal.

For such complex goals regarding harmonics and dispersion narrowing, we should focus on the measurements we can get in a speaker laboratory setting, as our hearing will not be able to give us adequate information. Big Smile

Adrian
02-09-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,734
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 84
Post ID: 9690
Reply to: 9683
The type of situations…
fiogf49gjkf0d

 Joe Roberts wrote:
What happens when drivers have different radiation patterns ….?

Actually nothing happens.  I pretty much discard any conversation about different radiation patterns for channels as if the Macondo Axioms are pursuit then each channel is trying to use a minimum dimension of throat for a given beneficial frequency and consequentially max own radiation profile. It is not to mention that my ignoring of the dominating  view about horns as pressure transformation devises make the whole subject of radiation patterns virtually relevant. If to view horns only as equalization devise then for a given point off the horns’ axis the EQ of a stereo horn is fixed and for practical application there is no room to talk about patterns but there is only opportunity to USE the give single EQ pattern. The “patterns” as the plural do affect imaging but it looks like you do not support (not familiar with, feel not profitable, deal only with people who have no idea what they are talking about… pick from the list, multiple selections are permitted) the subject of imaging to begin with, so I would not consider it as a problem for you.

 drdna wrote:
But we have all heard the difference, with standard stereo installations, where the bass comes from down below and the highs come from up above. Our ears can resolve sound localization in three dimensions.

Adrian, it happens ONLY in the inhalations with improperly integrated drivers. The entire subject of the “improper integration” shall get rid of this possibility. I know that you use EdgarHorn and what I heard it at its best I did note that midbass horn has some integration issuers, I told to Bruce about it and it looks like he knows it. Anyhow, if you hear that “bass comes from down below and the highs come from up above” then it not the problem of multi-driver topology but the problem of a given implementation. BTW, there are a certain degree to which the  “bass comes from down below and the highs come from up above” type of situation do not affect perception at all but it is a whole other subject.

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
02-09-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
drdna
San Francisco, California
Posts 512
Joined on 10-29-2005

Post #: 85
Post ID: 9691
Reply to: 9690
Vertical hearing perception
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Romy the Cat wrote:
it happens ONLY in the inhalations with improperly integrated drivers. The entire subject of the “improper integration” shall get rid of this possibility. I know that you use EdgarHorn and what I heard it at its best I did note that midbass horn has some integration issuers, I told to Bruce about it and it looks like he knows it. Anyhow, if you hear that “bass comes from down below and the highs come from up above” then it not the problem of multi-driver topology but the problem of a given implementation.
Romy, don't be silly. You are trying to tell me you cannot hear vertical position? You cannot tell if the cat meows, if it is on the ground or the ceiling. Of course you can; do not be ridiculous.

In stereo reproduction, it is difficult to tell because of the recorded room reflections and all the other information. I am NOT saying it is obvious at all. With the EdgarHorns, it sounds like no sound comes from the speakers, it is all in the stereo image illusion. However, there IS a difference with speakers in TMM and MTM configuration, and if you listen very carefully you can hear the effect of tweeters above, woofers below.

I admit the effect is well hidden, but to deny that we can perceive vertical sound position is just silly.

Adrian
02-09-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,734
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 86
Post ID: 9692
Reply to: 9691
Deny or not deny – here is the qedstion
fiogf49gjkf0d
 drdna wrote:
Romy, don't be silly. You are trying to tell me you cannot hear vertical position? You cannot tell if the cat meows, if it is on the ground or the ceiling. Of course you can; do not be ridiculous.
Nope, I of course do not do not deny out ability for vertical allocation of sources but I do deny it in context of a loudspeaker with properly integrated drivers. I might recognize some degree of vertical HF imagine shifting in some very extreme situation (for instance in as ridicules cased as Macondo is) but I m absolutely deny in a proper loudspeaker you might be able to detect that “bass comes from down below and the highs come from up above”. My view is that if you can localize bass source in context of the loudspeaker’s height then the loudspeaker/installation is made very ignorantly and very stupidly.
 drdna wrote:
However, there IS a difference with speakers in TMM and MTM configuration, and if you listen very carefully you can hear the effect of tweeters above, woofers below.
I am not sure that difference in TMM and MTM is because what you are proposing. There is deferens but I think it is because other reasons then the virtual geometry of phantom single driver. BTW, not all MTM are qualified (if I am not mistken) to be a properly implemented D-Appolito configuration. I still deny that the “woofers below” syndrome is a problem. A properly integrated woofers shall not be localized.


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
02-09-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
drdna
San Francisco, California
Posts 512
Joined on 10-29-2005

Post #: 87
Post ID: 9694
Reply to: 9692
Experiment for vertical perception
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Romy the Cat wrote:
Nope, I of course do not do not deny out ability for vertical allocation of sources but I do deny it in context of a loudspeaker with properly integrated drivers. I might recognize some degree of vertical HF imagine shifting in some very extreme situation.
I agree that in properly integrated system one does not hear the separate drivers. I think in any good system it is not obvious at all, but must still have an effect, maybe subtle to most listeners.

Try a simple experiment. Connect only one driver at a time. Listen only to the ribbon tweeters. Now listen only to the woofers. Etc. Can you distinguish different heights for the image? If you can, then there is an effect when the whole speaker set-up is going also.

Adrian
02-09-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Joe Roberts
Posts 48
Joined on 01-12-2009

Post #: 88
Post ID: 9695
Reply to: 9692
Let's pretend
fiogf49gjkf0d


each channel is trying to use a minimum dimension of throat for a given beneficial frequency and consequentially max own radiation profile.


Aside from the fact that a narrow throat leads to higher distortion, this is a good practical approach for two reasons:

1) Extra wide dispersion does not sound unnatural, whereas overly narrow dispersion does. At least this is my perception.

2) You have to sit somewhere and I can't think of a good reason to not want as many frequencies reaching your chair as possible.


As for my critique of "imaging" I do reject the mindless way the term is used these days, particularly when musical perception is equated with visual perception and visual logic and terminology are used to discuss and evaluate system performance.

I propose the term "dimensionality" to replace the overburdened term "imaging" to get away from the visual implications. A sound recording is not a picture.

As for the more inclusive and detailed multi-layered deconstruction of perceptual reality as practiced by Harry Pearson and Romy, this is an interesting experiment in phenomenology, as long as it is not confused with or made to interfere with the experience of joyful music listening.  It is unnatural to think about these things while listening to live music, so why switch when listening to a stereo?

Yes, there is a spatial dimension in live music as discussed 10 pages above, but if the comparison is taken seriously, any stereo is woefully deficient in scale, presence, and three-dimensionality compared to even small scale music let alone orchestra, and this insurmountable gap would/should lead most dedicated imaging freaks to eternal despair.

I think "imaging" as it is commonly known is a game of "Let's pretend."
02-10-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,734
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 89
Post ID: 9696
Reply to: 9694
Sorry, I do not buy it.
fiogf49gjkf0d
 drdna wrote:
Try a simple experiment. Connect only one driver at a time. Listen only to the ribbon tweeters. Now listen only to the woofers. Etc. Can you distinguish different heights for the image?
Of cause I can.
 drdna wrote:
If you can, then there is an effect when the whole speaker set-up is going also.
But this is the whole point of drives integration – you shall not be a able to recognize the individual drivers. Sorry, I can’t agree with what I did not experience. There are very many speakers out there that have fine driver integration and they all sound as one phantom radiating cloud. Not all of the can handle a nearfield but it is another subject. Try a simple experiment. Take a loudspeaker that you feel has the vertical disassociation between the drivers. Move a few feet or more back until the vertical disassociation between the drivers will be gone. That is how a properly integrated loudspeaker shell sound in near field from a perspective of drivers integration.

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
02-10-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,734
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 90
Post ID: 9697
Reply to: 9695
There is nothing here to pretend.
fiogf49gjkf0d

 Joe Roberts wrote:
As for my critique of "imaging" I do reject the mindless way the term is used these days, particularly when musical perception is equated with visual perception and visual logic and terminology are used to discuss and evaluate system performance.

Because you have developed the Pavlovian stimulus from the propaganda that you sucked it and apparently have developed a fear of. You did not see me taking about visual perception, do not even recognize what I was taking about but as soon word “imaging” pop up your Pavlovian response associated it wish the “soundstage mapping”. I know where you are coming from and I have no interest to explain anything further. You are not ready yet. BTW, the use of imaging as debugging tool is also eluded you , but it is OK…

 Joe Roberts wrote:
As I propose the term "dimensionality" to replace the overburdened term "imaging" to get away from the visual implications. A sound recording is not a picture.

I would disagree with it "dimensionality" implies geometrical dimension but it is very wrong. I will make one more last attempt to imply “what it might be” and then will stop. If you are familiar with Thomas Mann’s “Josef and his Brothers” then try to pay attention how Mann counted the amount of Israelis. When he said that it was 70 people in the family and he spend pages and pages to explain the precession of this number under the “truth of moonlight” then was the counting of Israelis as an algebratic action?

 Joe Roberts wrote:
As for the more inclusive and detailed multi-layered deconstruction of perceptual reality as practiced by Harry Pearson and Romy, this is an interesting experiment in phenomenology, as long as it is not confused with or made to interfere with the experience of joyful music listening.  It is unnatural to think about these things while listening to live music, so why switch when listening to a stereo?

If you deal with me then deal with me. I care less who I remind you. Mind you that I know plenty people in audio whose view very much remind me what you pitch, the Harry Pearson as I know him would be one of them. You however do not see me to associate you with him, do you? Also, do not worry about my “unnatural music listening habits”. If you read at this site more them whatever interferes with your marketing then you would understand the concept of target listening

 Joe Roberts wrote:
Yes, there is a spatial dimension in live music as discussed 10 pages above, but if the comparison is taken seriously, any stereo is woefully deficient in scale, presence, and three-dimensionality compared to even small scale music let alone orchestra, and this insurmountable gap would/should lead most dedicated imaging freaks to eternal despair.

I think "imaging" as it is commonly known is a game of "Let's pretend." 

You see, you are still comparing the live music with reproduced one. You just not there yet, there is nothing here to pretend.

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
02-10-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
drdna
San Francisco, California
Posts 512
Joined on 10-29-2005

Post #: 91
Post ID: 9698
Reply to: 9696
Driver integration
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Romy the Cat wrote:
 drdna wrote:
Try a simple experiment. Connect only one driver at a time. Listen only to the ribbon tweeters. Now listen only to the woofers. Etc. Can you distinguish different heights for the image?
Of cause I can.
 drdna wrote:
If you can, then there is an effect when the whole speaker set-up is going also.
But this is the whole point of drives integration – you shall not be a able to recognize the individual drivers. Sorry, I can’t agree with what I did not experience. There are very many speakers out there that have fine driver integration and they all sound as one phantom radiating cloud. Not all of the can handle a nearfield but it is another subject. Try a simple experiment. Take a loudspeaker that you feel has the vertical disassociation between the drivers. Move a few feet or more back until the vertical disassociation between the drivers will be gone. That is how a properly integrated loudspeaker shell sound in near field from a perspective of drivers integration.

The Cat
The very fact that if you are close enough to the array that the integration fails, thus it proves the issue exists. It is simply below the threshold of tolerability of perception for you when it is well-integrated. I do not dispute this at all. Adrian
02-10-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
drdna
San Francisco, California
Posts 512
Joined on 10-29-2005

Post #: 92
Post ID: 9699
Reply to: 9695
Stereo and live sound
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Joe Roberts wrote:
It is unnatural to think about these things while listening to live music, so why switch when listening to a stereo?
I think about these things because I am listening to a stereo. The recording and reproduction of the music is very different from live music. Technically, just two tiny point sources recorded from the giant three dimensional aspherical wavefront emanating from multiple directions of live music. It is a miracle it resembles anything like live music, actually. Still, to me the goal is not to re-create live music, which is just impossible, but to reproduce as perfectly as possible the recording which was done in such a way as to connect the listener to the intent of the musical piece/performance.

I agree it is a mistake to get hung up on imaging as an end in itself, but it is a artifact of the process, and I am not going to say it is not related to making the correct connection. To have proper imaging is like saying: there is a door that allowed me to get to the next room of the house.

Adrian
02-10-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
tuga


Posts 174
Joined on 12-26-2007

Post #: 93
Post ID: 9700
Reply to: 9691
Improper positioning?
fiogf49gjkf0d
 drdna wrote:


Romy, don't be silly. You are trying to tell me you cannot hear vertical position? You cannot tell if the cat meows, if it is on the ground or the ceiling. Of course you can; do not be ridiculous.

In stereo reproduction, it is difficult to tell because of the recorded room reflections and all the other information. I am NOT saying it is obvious at all. With the EdgarHorns, it sounds like no sound comes from the speakers, it is all in the stereo image illusion. However, there IS a difference with speakers in TMM and MTM configuration, and if you listen very carefully you can hear the effect of tweeters above, woofers below.

I admit the effect is well hidden, but to deny that we can perceive vertical sound position is just silly.

Adrian


Hello Adrian,

Do you also "hear" the sound coming from down below if a bassoon is playing? If so, couldn't this be the result of improper positioning?

Best,
Tuga


"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira Pascoaes
02-10-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,734
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 94
Post ID: 9701
Reply to: 9698
Not artifact but a byproduct
fiogf49gjkf0d

 drdna wrote:
I agree it is a mistake to get hung up on imaging as an end in itself, but it is a artifact of the process, and I am not going to say it is not related to making the correct connection. To have proper imaging is like saying: there is a door that allowed me to get to the next room of the house.

It is a mistake to get hung up on anything. However, imaging is not an artifact of process but a byproduct of process. Here is where the people who read too much of dummy audio publications are losing as they are not able to differentiate between imaging and soundstage. If you remember I always advocate a playback that is callable to throw the “most able” imaging but in context of “minimum” soundstage. What is “most able” imaging and what is “minimum soundstage” are very loaded questions – I would not go there here but I just would say that there is a LOT of behind it and answers to that load-ness lay out of pure audio.

I disagree with you view regarding imaging being as a door that allowed to get to the next room of the house. Wrong imaging is not a blocking mechanism itself; it does not prevent you to do to any room you want. Right imaging might help you to go in next room through the wall but the wrong one does not shut the door. There is in here a very fine moment – the good might be shut with wrong imaging but not because the imaging was wrong but because the mechanism that destroyed the imaging shut the door. In this case imaging acts as fast indication, sort of with mice on submarine during WWII, this dies first and indicates that something else is wrong. Let me give you an association. You can’t judge a person health base upon the cleanness if his/her let say face skin. However, if you see a person with very strong rash on his/her face then you can make an accurate assumption that something is wrong now with this person. The very same is with imaging. The incorrect or better to say “low level imaging” is indication of varicose deficiencies that acts as imbibes self-debugger. Install speakers in wrong place, disregard the DPoLS, skew up with time aliment, use wrong Q in crossovers, improper ground return passes, do zillion other mistakes and imaging will scream very first. Sure, no one “listen for the imaging” but some people with some listening intelligence who know how to practice “target listening” know how to “use” imaging for playback debugging.

As you noted I moved my accent from imaging as expressive tool to imaging as technical tool, I did nit not accidently. The point that I am trying to make is that even a person who is clueless about cultural and spirituals aspects of musicality but who has high technical listing skills can very much use imaging as very useful audio tool. One of the examples might be Bob Crump. He died 3-4 years back but he is one of the few people among the Morons which whom I was able to have very productive conversation about imaging. Bob was not too interesting person from musical perceptive and was even more boring in audio world (he was associated with incredible amount of humans waste that I would prefer to die as soon as possible and d preferably in slow and painful death) but Bob also had a very-very good “targeted listening” familiarity that I valued quote high and in fact I was many time surprised how accurate he was. We have many conversations his him and he was very right to USE imaging as a mechanism of the first alert. I consider him under no circumstances as someone who among of my friends but it did not prevent up to talk, and very productively, about the way how imaging might be USED.

The caT


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
02-10-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Joe Roberts
Posts 48
Joined on 01-12-2009

Post #: 95
Post ID: 9704
Reply to: 9701
Samizdat mentality
fiogf49gjkf0d


As for my critique of "imaging" I do reject the mindless way the term is used these days, particularly when musical perception is equated with visual perception and visual logic and terminology are used to discuss and evaluate system performance. Because you have developed the Pavlovian stimulus from the propaganda that you sucked it and apparently have developed a fear of. You did not see me taking about visual perception, do not even recognize what I was taking about but as soon word "imaging" pop up your Pavlovian response associated it wish the "soundstage mapping".


Well, if you look above to where my intitial foray into this critique occurred, one reader DID slip into the literal visual metaphor trap and that is who/what I was reacting to. As soon as you mention "imaging," you will invoke this association, regardless of what you personally mean by the word. That is why it is a trap.


As for the more inclusive and detailed multi-layered deconstruction of perceptual reality as practiced by Harry Pearson and Romy, this is an interesting experiment in phenomenology, as long as it is not confused with or made to interfere with the experience of joyful music listening.  It is unnatural to think about these things while listening to live music, so why switch when listening to a stereo? If you deal with me then deal with me. I care less who I remind you. Mind you that I know plenty people in audio whose view very much remind me what you pitch, the Harry Pearson as I know him would be one of them. You however do not see me to associate you with him, do you?


Actually, yes you did directly associate me with HP. But I don't mind, except that your characterization of HP in this context was inaccurate.

In the context I am evoking, my association of you and HP is a compliment to the extent that you are moving beyond the stale and shallow notion of "imaging" to a more complex and interactional model. However, since you see HP as merely a VCR salesman, you did not understand what I was saying. Your notions of the relation of imaging and soundstage are right out of HP's work or at least very similar.


Mind you that I know plenty people in audio whose view very much remind me what you pitch


Yeah, but I was among the first introduce a number of these concepts, as questions, rather than answers. What people did with it later is not my fault, any more than HP is responsible for simple minded distillations of "imaging."

You are not ready yet. BTW, the use of imaging as debugging tool is also eluded you , but it is OK.


You see, you are still comparing the live music with reproduced one. You just not there yet, there is nothing here to pretend.


Or maybe I was there 20 years ago and I am the one who has evolved beyond. I am past fetishishizing on gear and detailed quasi-scientific evaluation programs. I am a music listener again. All I care about, really, is my individual enjoyment.

I am not comparing live vs. memorex. I am criticizing the justification and even possibility of this comparison. I just listen to my shitty, imperfect stereo and try to enjoy it.

Also, do not worry about my "unnatural music listening habits"


As I said above numerous times. whatever it takes for you to enjoy, that is cool with me. I used to enjoy being super-geeky about this stuff myself. Sound reproduction is a very intriguing phenomenon. to be sure. But, for myself, I finally decided that plain and simple musical enjoyment is the highest goal and overintellectuallzed BS about stereos is an obstacle.

But this should not be about me or you. To the extent that intelligent discussion thrives, any of these positions are good starting points.

Of course, I am satisfied that my position fully engulfs yours and spits the bones out on the carpet. I know this because my stance allows yours to breathe but your stance requires fighting the world every morning, noon, and night.

Not an assault, but rather an obervation, perhaps your view of any commerical activity as evil comes from an upbringing in pre-capitalist Russia. Trade and markets are more than arenas for mob activity or enslavement of the proletariat. Commerce is a way people share, interact, and communicate. Most of the valuable contributors actually don't make much money at it, but this is how humans work.

Joe Rob

02-10-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,734
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 96
Post ID: 9705
Reply to: 9704
“Commerce is a way people share, interact, and communicate”.
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Joe Roberts wrote:
.... but this is how humans work.
… or perhaps you are ignorant not only in the audio subjects but also in common sense. Redding your post I lost interest in your “stance” two weeks back, primary because you have expressed your bearing and I found that many of your thoughts were too much ado about nothing. 20 years ago I would find it worth to disagree. Where I am now, I just loose interest. As any respected herself feline in Serengeti I do not mind to allow small birds and large flies to jump atop of my head as I do not particularly care about them. Good luck with your simple musical enjoyment sponsored by intermittent attacks of primitive hypocrisy. In fugue, I would prefer you to withhold yourself from posting if you feel that your content has not audio applications. This site is about audio reproduction not about “nostalgia for unfulfillment”. If you feel that audio interests are not something that you are interested in (which is perfectly valid) then find in yourself a power do not pollute audio-scenic site with own ego trips roofing that some people are so much behind in a circle and so absentminded that they feel that they are leaders. That was the last time what I replied to you to subject not related to audio. If you wish to express your general views about near-audio topic then feel free to start a new dedicated thread. Knowing that any “audio thinking” in your HP mind happens only when a new deliverable and cashable product become available I doubt that you will do it. You might wait until Silbatone will release new tube dumpers in a few month then you’ll interrupt the “liturgy of your simple musical enjoyments” and suddenly get arouse with new revelation in audio. Give the thousand kisses to HP, as far as I concern the only thing that you ever archived was my invention of AD-1 device, for what I am gratefully thankfull to you.

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
02-10-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,734
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 97
Post ID: 9708
Reply to: 9698
Sometimes integration imperfections are not a problem.
fiogf49gjkf0d

 drdna wrote:
The very fact that if you are close enough to the array that the integration fails, thus it proves the issue exists.

Hmmmm, the issue exists, yes it does; but I would like to point out that it is necessary to recognize what the issues is. Approximation to speakers make bass and HF come from a different angels and you feel that it is not good. However, during live performance you will be able to tolerate much more critical angle of sources and do not experience any problems. So, discarding the masking effects of long decay of large concert hole I would propose what I always say there are separation of sound sources that impact us negatives and there are those that do not.

Do you remember I pitching the notion that the distortions themselves are not auditable but the mechanisms that create distortions are auditable. So, following it I would state that the vertical separation of let say bass and HF is until it is happen by the wrong reasons and by wrong methods. What I am trying to say with going deep is the there is a possibility where you might experience vertical shift of imaging but will not have any negative listing messages that would interfere with performing intend. 

I do not insist that I know all those rule but I do know that there are integration imperfections that need to be addressed and there are those might be absolutely discarded. In my view the synchronization of TTH characteristic in time-aligned environment is a more or less assurance that integration imperfections will not be negatively impacting listening practice.

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
02-10-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
drdna
San Francisco, California
Posts 512
Joined on 10-29-2005

Post #: 98
Post ID: 9709
Reply to: 9704
Why do we have high end stereos?
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Joe Roberts wrote:
I am past fetishishizing on gear and detailed quasi-scientific evaluation programs. I am a music listener again. All I care about, really, is my individual enjoyment. I am not comparing live vs. memorex. I am criticizing the justification and even possibility of this comparison. I just listen to my shitty, imperfect stereo and try to enjoy it.
Joe, you bring up a very good point. At a certain point, I think our ears and minds learn what to hear when we listen to our stereos. I admit freely I do not listen only to my "high end" system. I spend a lot of time listening to my cheap speakers in the car or my tiny earphones for my iPod. AND I enjoy those things a lot. My familiarity with the sounds of music, with the composers/artists, and with the pieces/performances allows me to connect with a great deal of the Sound through these simple flawed devices.

So what is high end audio, then? I know for some it is the quest for the perfect soundstage, but let us exclude them for the moment. Rather, is it a way for us to become more connected to the Sound? In a sense, like a crutch for an invalid whose legs are too weak. To be used until he can regain the strength of his own legs, then to be discarded as unnecessary?

Will we all at some point dispense with high end audio because we no longer need it to be connected to the Sound?

Or is there something else that draws us to our high end systems?

Adrian
02-10-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
drdna
San Francisco, California
Posts 512
Joined on 10-29-2005

Post #: 99
Post ID: 9710
Reply to: 9708
Vertical imaging issues
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Romy the Cat wrote:
Do you remember I pitching the notion that the distortions themselves are not auditable but the mechanisms that create distortions are auditable. So, following it I would state that the vertical separation of let say bass and HF is until it is happen by the wrong reasons and by wrong methods. What I am trying to say with going deep is the there is a possibility where you might experience vertical shift of imaging but will not have any negative listing messages that would interfere with performing intend
Yes, I agree, but I feel that vertical imaging is not really an issue of integration. In my mind it is fairly straightforward: stereo = two channels. Two channels = two point sources. Of course this is only one possibility. However, critical to what I am saying is converse to your statement: instead I feel there can be a negative impact on sound due to vertical imaging issues when NO vertical separation of drivers is discernible.

Adrian
02-10-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Joe Roberts
Posts 48
Joined on 01-12-2009

Post #: 100
Post ID: 9712
Reply to: 9709
Looking for invisible
fiogf49gjkf0d


So what is high end audio, then? I know for some it is the quest for the perfect soundstage, but let us exclude them for the moment. Rather, is it a way for us to become more connected to the Sound? In a sense, like a crutch for an invalid whose legs are too weak. To be used until he can regain the strength of his own legs, then to be discarded as unnecessary?

Will we all at some point dispense with high end audio because we no longer need it to be connected to the Sound?

Or is there something else that draws us to our high end systems?


Who can say? There is no general answer. Depends on what an individual needs to do at the time.

I have spent years geeking out on technical concepts and I have been doing it here. There is a time for so called "technical listening" or "evaluative listening" and I do that a lot too, when evaluating.

What I was saying about being beyond that is that I don't do it all the time anymore. I used to sit there carefully picking apart my sound and freaking out on imaging and whatnot. This is a cool illusion that stereos can produce. At the time, I found this kind of self-conscious "Absolute Sound" listening very rewarding and I learned a lot about what a stereo can do.

Eventually I got to a point with my Altec 1505/288/416A rig with the EQ crossover and whatever that I could appreciate these technical things but did not obsess about them anymore. Then I realized it wasn't the speakers, it was ME.

Somehow, I learned to give up constant evaluation and just listen to music.

So yeah, I can listen to and enjoy stuff that I clearly recognize is inferior, like my Volvo radio with the dead driver's side woofer. But I enjoy a really good system more. If there are no obtrusive problems, it makes for easier listening.

This is why I am drawing a line between being "Joe Audio Critic" and just listening to music. I think that being in the reflexive, consciously evaluating state that we audio nerds learn to put ourselves into detracts from pure musical enjoyment and replaces it with sound appreciation activities.

So where I try to get with a system that I consider a "serious" music enjoyment system is where I am not even thinking about the system.

One of the systems that did this for me was a pr of cheapo Loth-x bookshelf speakers with Malaysian paper cone 6" driver and a junky dome tweeter, driven by a stereo globe 71A SE amp at 650 mW output. This was my office system. It was as natural and unforced as can be, to the point that I forgot it was on, even though I was diggging the tunes.

Anyway, that is my ideal now, a system that does not get in my face and just plays me some music. Vivid and engaging but not screaming for my attention. If I really focus and evaluate, maybe I can point out some faults or limitiations, but they do no force themselves into my listening space.

This recent discussion about bad driver integration...THAT is the kind of thing that drives me crazy. If I hear the edgar mid bass horn tooting away (yeah, that is a problem item--bad chunk of spectrum to cut into its own horn, IMHO), it will distract me from my goal to relax and music listen.

I might change again. I might get back into the audio spectacular stuff that used to turn me on, but I hope I retain the appreciation for what strikes me as natural and no more dramatic than the music I am listening to, because it a lot more fun.

So when I rag on "imaging nuts" and what have you, I know the kind of pleasures that sort of evaluative technical listening can provide, but I found something more rewarding for myself in not doing that 24/7.

I also feel it is my duty to point out when this is not music listening and deconstruct arguments that try to give it the color of music listening, when it is actually sound appreciation. The "live music" comparison is one of the vectors where this kind of manipulation takes place. A dead giveaway is when the audiophile starts extracting bits of frequency spectrum for commentary or other forms of segmenting the continuum that do not come naturally when listening to an actual musical performance.

At CES, we had three guys from a speaker company come by after closing to listen to the Aporia. These cats were professional speaker nerds, but they brought some very well recorded actual good music, Nils Lofgren and such. They stayed for an hour and we listened and chatted. At the end, the official evaluation was "Wow, this speaker really has some remarkable qualities" even though they couldn't exactly define what they were and neither could I. It was a radically different flavor and, for those of us who probably spent too much of our lives evaluating, a refreshing experience.

Just to be clear, I really don't care if anybody buys this damn speaker or not, but I feel pretty good about putting the word out because it breaks the mold and presents something different that explodes prior conceptions, especially among people who think they know the Manger, single-drivers, or backhorns. It is more than the logical sum of the parts. It was good but it was good differently and in a way that encouraged music listening instead of "wow, check out those highs" or "heavens, what imaging!"

As I have often said, there is a lot of good stuff on this site and an appreciation for quality. The owner is pretty clear that he is an evaluative listening dude and is in a stage where that is rewarding and useful. Perhaps this round of evaluation got him somewhere promising. I know how that can be.

Eventually though, I think most old heads realize that all systems are imperfect and come to grips with that, even if they demand a level of imperfection that is way above average quality and one that is tuned to their personal acceptable compromises and priorities. That for me is the goal of evolution in audio life. It too me a while to get there, so I like to imagine that this is a worthy goal, but maybe this is just the rationalizations of an audio burnout.


Anyway, you asked....


JRob



Page 5 of 6 (108 items) Select Pages:  « First ... « 2 3 4 5 6 »
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  Truth stretched out via Feastrex prism...  Goodbye Chris Witmer...  Audio Discussions  Forum     26  247098  01-21-2006
  »  New  Western Electric reproduces 0Hz + some literature…..  Re-set...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     2  45827  07-24-2006
  »  New  Learn to differentiate between Imaging and Soundstage...  Learn to differentiate between Imaging and Soundstage....  Audio For Dummies ™  Forum     0  12595  03-07-2007
  »  New  Klangfilm: actual knowledge is better then fetish imagi..  Klangfilm Kl51...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     18  185924  03-15-2007
  »  New  The unintended consequences of binaural things in Hi-Fi..  Re: Binaural -- or what ever the case was......  Playback Listening  Forum     1  24438  08-04-2009
  »  New  Munich High End 2010..  The retarded open baffle...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     39  296671  05-16-2010
  »  New  The CES's 2011 horns..  Reviewers and table radios...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     21  144859  01-07-2011
  »  New  A Moscow setup with Horns/Lowther..  A new reiteration of the Moscow setup....  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     33  282178  02-27-2011
  »  New  A new kid in the block: Sadurni Acoustics..  Axpona 2015...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     21  108118  08-22-2011
  »  New  Aries Cerat Contendo - the newest "fat" kid i..  It is very unfortunate then...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     5  36670  09-08-2011
Home Page  |  Last 24Hours  | Search  |  SiteMap  | Questions or Problems | Copyright Note
The content of all messages within the Forums Copyright © by authors of the posts