drdna wrote:

Point source installations have a distinct character.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

drdna wrote:

If you can, then there is an effect when the whole speaker set-up is going also.

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.

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

Joe Roberts wrote:

It is unnatural to think about these things while listening to live music, so why switch when listening to a stereo?

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

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.

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".

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?

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

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.

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

Joe Roberts wrote:

.... but this is how humans work.

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.

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.

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

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?