|
General Asylum General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories. |
|
|
|
General Asylum General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories. |
|
In Reply to: RE: it isn't possible to make a loudspeaker ... at that price range posted by KlausR. on October 26, 2010 at 02:34:59:
Blumlein refers to the reproduction of depth in his original stereo patent, and I've seen a stereophonic demonstration film he made in the 30's in which the speaker's distance from the microphone is reproduced to spectacular effect. That affect won't occur to any significant degree with a monophonic recording. So while I think it's probably the future of sound reproduction, wave field synthesis isn't necessary to create a sense of depth in the stereo sweet spot, beyond the crude approximations of stereophony, anyway (MS stereo is really first order WFT with a single sample).
Room reflections seem necessary for this. In fact, according to Toole, first-order Ambisonics in an anechoic chamber didn't provide any sense of front-back localization at all! The same is true of headphone reproduction of conventional stereo recordings, which also lacks any contribution from the HRTF. That being the case, it's not surprising that it doesn't reproduce front-back perspective. That can be introduced in headphone listening with head tracking and real-time room and HRTF emulation -- see the latest issue of Stereophile for an interesting example.
To the best of my knowledge, very little is known about the psychoacoustical basis of depth perception. Toole's book, for example, essentially says "We have no idea." The reproduction of depth has something to do with recorded ambiance and listening room reflections, and it seems to be best reproduced by loudspeakers with uniform polar frequency and, according to one source, phase response.
AFAIK, to reproduce depth, two things are required: recorded reflections, and the ability to reproduce it in the listening room at an angular separation from the loudspeakers. Headphones and anechoic chambers don't satisfy these criteria. Neither does a loudspeaker with non-uniform frequency or phase response -- the issue here is apparently that the brain must be able to relate the reflections to the original source to interpret them as reflections or, perhaps, that spectral distortions introduced by the reproducer or room interfere with the brain's ability to localize the sound and gauge the acoustic on the basis of comb filtering and the HRTF.
The speakers in your link measure beautifully, and I'm all in favor of the use of DSP in loudspeakers. IMO, the high end industry is hopelessly stick-in-the-mud when it comes to the application of new technology. But, and it's a big but, I don't think a handful of measurements can completely characterize the audible performance of a speaker. The measurements aren't comprehensive enough and don't entirely reflect behavior in an actual listening room, and even if they were and they did, our understanding of psychoacoustics is too primitive to correlate the measurements completely with what we hear.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: it isn't possible to make a loudspeaker ... at that price range - josh358 12:08:02 10/26/10 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
