 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
66.73.173.134
In Reply to: Rear-firing tweeters : gimmick or real improvement ? posted by Lambda on November 9, 2006 at 07:45:17:
["As time go by, I find myself yearning for a more realistic presentation, i.e., a bigger, more diffuse, more enveloping soundstage."]What is your benchmark for 'realistic' other than bigger, more, and more? Is it something you've heard or imagined to be possible (i.e., rear-firing tweeters)?
["Pinpoint imaging may be a spectacular feature, but I find this more and more distracting than anything else. In fact, I often listen off-axis, just to avoid this effect."]
You make pinpoint imaging sound mundane. To add spice, do I understand your priorities may be leaning towards designs, on the leading edge of gimmickry?
Follow Ups:
nt
Getting a true concert hall effect from a home audio system is not a matter of better high frequency reproduction or flatter frequency response, adding a tweeter or ten or doing anythng that is already being done today only better. Concert hall realism comes from recreating the same acoustical effect a concert hall creates but in your listening room. Unfortunately, that is beyond the current state of the art. There are no HT systems, SACDs, or other straightforward equipment you can buy which will bridge the gap, all claims to the contrary notwithstanding. I have experimented with this problem even longer than with the indirect tweeter array idea, nearly 33 years now. I've built 2 experimental systems which could in many cases "get the job done." But setting it up, adjusting it for the room, and adjusting it for each recording is beyond all but the most advanced and determined audiophiles. And it is principly for classical music, choral and pipe organ music, operas, etc although it can enhance other types of music as well. There may be other experimental ideas out there besides my own but they are not in general distribution either.
First of all, have you ever heard a MC system in something other than a show or dealer environment?rw
I have a stack of decoders. SQ, QS, RM, dolby. (funny, I've got Empire's TOTL CD4 cartridge but no decoder for it or records.) I've also got a 4 channel tape deck. Right now I've got a 5 channel HT set up in my bedroom. Compared to my experimental system it is very disappointing. Remember I was around when 4 channel sound was anticipated to be viable. In fact, I read the very first issue of Stereo Review which suggested placing a rear speaker connected across the L+ and R+ speaker output terminals predecessor to Dynaco's Dynaquad system (I also have 2 SCA-80Q amps with built in dynaquad decoders.) Recently (around a year ago) I heard a Bose surround sound system. The salesman though it was fantastic. When he asked me what I thought I didn't have the heart to say it sucked so I said what I always say in those circumstances..."interesting"...just like I said when I heard the Martin Logan Summits.BTW, I don't expect you to believe it but the mathematical analysis predicts multi channel can't work because there is no way to keep the direct sound out of the microphones designed to record the ambient channels. There is simply no practical way to record just the ambient channels properly, they have to be resynthesized using an appropriate mathematical algorithm, something you'd appreciate. Also, there need to be at least 4 ambient channels in addition to the 4 main channels because the sound field they have to recreate is a vector field, another critical factor which seems to have escaped those who conceived these systems.
Remember I was around when 4 channel sound was anticipated to be viable.So was I, but as a kid audiophile in the early 70s. I used a Dyna Quadaptor too, back in '72 with Advents in the front and Smaller Advents in the rear. Columbia in particular made a big deal about their SQ recordings. On Santana's Abraxas album, you could hear Chepito's percussion in the rear. Wait a minute. When I saw them live, he wasn't playing from the lobby. The novelty wore off pretty quickly and I sold the Smaller Advents and tried double Advents in the front supplemented with Microstatic tweeters. Remember them? They were originally designed to add life to the insipid AR-3As.
I was using your H-K Citation 11 preamp and a "pro" Crown amp at age 17. I dumped them when I got my first full range electrostats in '77. About fifteen years ago, I bought a DSP based unit and again tried with a pair of RS Minimum 7s in the rear. Similar story. The novelty quickly wore off and eventually moved the speakers to the rears in a true 5.1 HT system.
I don't expect you to believe it but the mathematical analysis predicts multi channel can't work because there is no way to keep the direct sound out of the microphones designed to record the ambient channels.
Frankly, I have not been overwhelmed with what MC can do. Yet. That from the perspective of hearing a very nice Magnepan based system using a Meitner front end along with C-J and Edge electronics. My experience does not counter your theory.
...they have to be resynthesized using an appropriate mathematical algorithm, something you'd appreciate.
Indeed. While I always enjoyed the challenge of working with complex algorithms, my musical side responds that what you are doing is necessarily artificial. Applying a fixed set of rules to all recording venues. Which has been my reaction to a range of "decoders" I've experienced over the years that monkey with signal (usually with phase) in an attempt to provide "realism".
rw
"While I always enjoyed the challenge of working with complex algorithms, my musical side responds that what you are doing is necessarily artificial"Grow up. Reproducing music is artificial. Always has been, always will be. In fact, the way I look at it, the only sound which comes out of a loudspeaker or a headphone which is music is from an electric guitar or the like and a systhesizer because they are part of the instrument themselves. And except for some synthesizer music they are not sounds I particularly like hearing.
"I was using your H-K Citation 11 preamp and a "pro" Crown amp at age 17. I dumped them when I got my first full range electrostats in '77. About fifteen years ago"
The real world in use differences between this class of equipment and other far more expensive equipment is so marginal as to not be worth the substantial extra cost. Real engineers are always cost conscious, practical. They don't succumb to having to have what someone else says is best because someone else says it. They treat their own money as carefully as they treat those who employ them to spend theirs. If they want to stay in business, when they spend extra money, there has to be a good justifiable reason. In the case of so called high end audio equipment, there usually isn't. And BTW, IMO if a real engineer wanted such equipment, most often he'd build it himself. It's not that hard.
"I bought a DSP based unit and again tried with a pair of RS Minimum 7s in the rear. Similar story"
Don't compare what you did to what I did. The DSP I bought came 13 years after I found the mathematical solution to this problem and 11 years after I built an analog version. The DSP I sellected was only chosen because it had the capability of being programmed with the suitable algorighms and that is only part of the solution. Other DSPs don't. Even so, it tooks several years to get it to work satisfactorily. Insofar as the overall solution is concerned, I know at least as much as the DSP manufacturer did when he stole my algorithms and incorporated it into his product. As for 5.1, it doesn't have a prayer of recreating concert hall acoustics or experience. The signal isn't on the recording, can't be put there for a variety of reasons (a 6.1 would be the minimum if it could) and the conventional 5.1 systems couldn't reproduce it properly if it were. Stick with your dressing screens. That's the best you will likely ever get anyway.
Reproducing music is artificial.But not necessarily deliberately altered. Some like gimmicks, others don't. Take your choice.
The real world in use differences between this class of equipment and other far more expensive equipment is so marginal as to not be worth the substantial extra cost.
For someone who finds that a Lincoln MK VII "provides all the performance you can practically or legally use" such an opinion is not in the least bit surprising. :)
I know at least as much as the DSP manufacturer did when he stole my algorithms and incorporated it into his product.
Interesting. So there is a commercially available SM Special box out there? How did that happen? Did he know where you live, break into your house, and conveniently locate and take microfilm of the original manuscripts with your algorithms?
rw
Although it has been mentioned in various forums, very few have ever gotten to listen to Ray Kimber's Iso Mike setup for four channel recordings. I have never been too keen on the music presentations I have heard in multichannel. Ray's has been the first that I have heard to heighten the reality of a what I thought was superb two channel sound initially. His approach has been to correct the recording anomalies, and not try to synthesize a reality which can be variable depending where you sit (even in real life).
Synthesis is just that: a man made artifact trying hard to reproduce reality. I'll believe in the process the day I hear a synthesizer reproduce the sound of a real player playing a real instrument in real time.
Stu
I've never used quad in the old days or any other type of ambient retrieval system. However awhile back I read about James Bongiorno's (of GAS fame) Trinaural Processor, which requires the use of 3 front channels speakers, 3 amps & the Trinaural Processor. Anyone here heard this type of setup? Or does anyone have anything to say about the pros or cons of this method of replicating audio? Seems to me "IF" it does what Mr. Bongiorno claims it does, the cost of the Trinaural Processor at $1500.00 would be a worthwhile investment. Afterall it's a one time expense that will never change no matter what other changes one makes to the rest of their system!Any comments?
Keep enjoying the music -- Thetubeguy1954
It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows. - Epictetus
came about in the very early days of stereo: You can find center channel outputs on many very early stereo preamps, The Macs come to mind. In the mono era spakers could be placed anywhere, and it took some getting used to in order to sewt up stereo, so trinaural had a brief flurry od interest.
Stu
The Trinaural Processor is not just a center channel synthesizer like the ones you mention. Please read the description on the above referenced website.I own and have used this device, and it does what Bongiorno claims. However, it cannot and does not introduce any sound components more than 45 degrees to either side of the centerline. I have not had the chance to try Trinaural with ambience reconstruction, but I think the results could be superb.
and Ralph Glasgal's ambiophonics rig. Naturally, both of them have excellent taste in the transducers they chose. :)rw
I was lucky to have the opportunity to chat with Ray for a while about his process. The recommended rear placement was 135 degrees off of dead center, with the front speakers set up in a normal stereo configuration. Ray bypasses all processing as you wouldn't have the faintest idea of how the recording engineer mixed in the rear channels or how much reverberance he placed in the recording. He records in discreet four channel mode.Admittedly his process will not work for many pop recordings, which use overlays of channels and over dubs to create certain effects. It does work well for classical and jazz which can and are often performed acoustically live.
The biggest problem with all processors is the variance in the recording techniques. Technically, one may have to adjust the parameters for every recording. I can not see any listener really doing that consistently.
Stu
...you would have sufficient training in mathematics, physics, and electrical engineering to do what I did, develop the transfer function which gives the relationship between the sound energy field generated at one place, a spot on a performing stage, and the resultant sound field at another, a seat in the audience. Once you do that and realize this relationship can be measured in the real world and duplicated electroacoustically, you will understand everything you need to know about how concert hall acoustics work and what is required to duplicate them at home. This is not a trick, not a gimmick, and nothing particularly unusual. It's a straghtforward problem most any engineer, certainly any electrical engineer with a bachelors degree from an accredited school in the United States and any physicist should easily be able to solve just as I did nearly 33 years ago. If you're not, then you can stick with your audiophile myths and deslusions that don't ever seem to work. 7.1 anyone?
you would have already marketed it and we would be mentioning your name along with Ray Dolby...or would we because the road in hifi is littered with supposed "surround" sound music attempts like quadrophonic, for example
I attempted this shortly after my patent was granted. Nobody of 20 major manufacturers was interested at the time. DSP was a way into the future. No one even wanted a demo. Then Yamaha's DSP-1 appeared. It meets the minimum criteria for a critical circuit in my invention. The fact that it originally sold for $900 and is lucky to get even $100 on E-bay today is testamony to the fact that there is little interest in it. Hardly surprising to me because as is typical of those interested in this audio product lines, most have far greater interest in running down the same blind dead end alleys and bashing their heads into the same imovable brick wall than they are in pursuing something somewhat more difficult that actually stands a chance of working. Want more proof? OK, I've written about the advantages of indirect firing tweeters for improving the sound of loudspeakers for years. It is nether difficult nor expensive but how many people have even tried it. Very few I'd bet. It's easier to go shopping for new expensive equipment which promises a holy grail than to actually experiment. It seems all of the red blood has gone out of the American male. He'd rather sit in front of a TV set, a computer, or a store bought audio system than actually use his hands and brains. Small wonder most of them are so fat.
But I understand why you don't.If you ever do, I'll get in line to hear it. Could be the first real paradigm shift in audio! Haven't heard of anything else that bears much more than a passing resemblance. Might be a little impractical for all but the biggest audio enthusiasts, which might explain why there was no interest before. I'm curious if that feeling might be different today.
Care to comment on BassNut's concern above? He doesn't seem overly fond of indirect firing tweeters. And what's more fun than a subjectivist arguing with an objectivist? Two objectivists arguing! Yeeeee-haaaaaa!!!! :)
> Small wonder most of them are so fat. <
Well, I have a fat head sometimes but I'm trying to cut down.
1983Alas, Yamaha stole his idea. Look what wonderful things they did with it. Perhaps we could see a pic of the Full Monty AR-9 cum tweeters / sweet 16 RS Minimus 7 arrangement instead.
rw
I'll have to look into the DSP-1 - just a little research to see what it's supposed to do.If Soundmind's system does what he says, it could certainly do the same with my preference in speakers. I'm only interested in the concept at this point.
you won't find much fat on me :). I am also a fan of the indiret firing tweeter. I am also a fan of dipole speakers in general, owning big planar speakers will do that to you.
all that BS has nothing at all to do with the ability of non-EEs to discern the qualities of hearing real music in a concert environment.It's a straghtforward problem most any engineer, certainly any electrical engineer with a bachelors degree from an accredited school in the United States and any physicist should easily be able to solve just as I did nearly 33 years ago.
And yet none of the solutions I've yet heard developed by said provide a more realistic presentation than a few high resolution systems in my experience. I'm willing to hear any and all successful attempts like the two mentioned.
Maybe one of these decades you will be able to get someone in the industry to take your handwaving and "genius" seriously. Best of luck to you. :)
rw
"Reproducing music is artificial.
But not necessarily deliberately altered"Not deliberately, inherently. An image from a camera is not the real thing either, no matter how good the camera or the photographer.
"For someone who finds that a Lincoln MK VII "provides all the performance you can practically or legally use" such an opinion is not in the least bit surprising. :)"
My Mark VIII can accelerate to 60 mph in about 6 seconds, handles very well, and has a top speed of over 140 mph, an insane speed on any public road besides being illegal in the US to drive that fast. And unlike far more expensive sports cars which have marginally better performance of little practical use, it is very comfortable even on long trips, has all the amenities I want, and can actually be used to carry some fairly large and heavy objects...like AR9s.
"Interesting. So there is a commercially available SM Special box out there?"
Yes, if you know how to use Yamaha DSP-1. When I saw it, I recognized it instantly for what it was.
"How did that happen? Did he know where you live, break into your house, and conveniently locate and take microfilm of the original manuscripts with your algorithms?"
No, it was much easier for them than that. All they needed to do was get a copy of my patent. It's in the public domain. In fact they were probably among those I gave copies of it to at the 1983 AES convention in NYC so they didn't even have to pay the price of a postage stamp. The bad news was that two attorneys advised me what it would cost to sue and what my odds of winning in court would be. The good news is that few if any audiophiles ever took it seriously and really understood how to exploit its potential. So the amount of money to be made from it was modest.
An image from a camera is not the real thing either, no matter how good the camera or the photographer.So, let's intentionally introduce altered copies of the image back to the original? No, thanks. :)
My Mark VIII can accelerate to 60 mph in about 6 seconds...
No, it doesn't. Try 7.0 seconds. Motor Trend recorded 7.2. Correct answer
...handles very well
LOL!! For an AARP sled perhaps. That is if you find .75 G cornering impressive!
...if you know how to use Yamaha DSP-1.
Well, the good news if you like that sort of thing you can buy one for $50 on ebay! They're discontinued, right?
rw
"My Mark VIII can accelerate to 60 mph in about 6 seconds...No, it doesn't. Try 7.0 seconds. Motor Trend recorded 7.2."
How would I know? I've just driven one for the past 8 years.
"...handles very well
LOL!! For an AARP sled perhaps."
Can't deliver neck snapping whiplash inducing injuries just from turning the steering wheel. Short of that, it does as well as the much more expensive competition from the other personal luxury car manufacturers. That is all a sane person wants or needs.
"...if you know how to use Yamaha DSP-1.
Well, the good news if you like that sort of thing you can buy one for $50 on ebay! They're discontinued, right?
Dime a dozen. Nobody knows how to use them. It become obvious to me that this technology is well beyond what is usable by audiophiles. They will have to learn to live with what they have. Better will not come along for a long while...if ever.
Phony notion of high end audio equipment, phony notion of what the ideal driving machine is for the real world, phony engineering degree and title. That pretty much sums you up E-Stat. At least for me it does. You should move to California. Five years of living there taught me that it is the capitol of the universe for make believe and wanabees. Enjoy your dressing screens. They are probably the best sound reproduction equipment you will ever have.
...it does as well as the much more expensive competition from the other personal luxury car manufacturers.Priceless. You continue to illustrate my point far more eloquently and unabashedly than I. I'll take a Modena. ;)
Nobody knows how to use them. It become obvious to me that this technology is well beyond what is usable by audiophiles.
Except of course, for you, right?
Enjoy your dressing screens. They are probably the best sound reproduction equipment you will ever have.
Why thank you! I am quite content with the U-1s.
rw
...a 5.1 surround sound system and some well recorded SACDs may be what you're looking for.A rear firing tweeter can help creat ambience.
I've heard speakers where this worked well (Infinity IRS) and others where it didn't work so well, or perhaps it was turned up too high.
Hi Lambda!May I ask what is your ultimate "goal" in assembling an audio system? As I'm sure you're well aware of there is no one true way that works for everyone. My postion on audio is best described by saying I believe the ultimate "goal" is to find a system that has the best capababilty to replicate LIVE music. This is done while understanding all audio components are flawed. So we should all choose the audio components that possess the performance capabilities that are the most important & desireable to us and our individual listening preferences. Thus while not a perfect replication of live music, it's the closet we can get to replicating LIVE music, while using the less than perfect audio components produced today.
Of course there are naysayers who want you and everyone else to accept their audio dogma as the "correct" one. But remember there is no one true way that works for everyone! So when people begin talking about replicating live music, some people like AJinFLA did, will say: For that (to be possible) one would A) have to be present at the recording venue at the time of production B) possess perfect audio memory. The latter being impossible for mere humans, unless of course you an an audiophile, in which case such trivialities become irrelevant.
AJinFLA's comment is mostly incorrect. We posses a much greater, albeit not perfect audio memory than AJinFLA would have you believe. For example: Don't you instantly recognize the voices of your wife, children, boss and others you know well? Don't you always recognize the difference between live and recorded music? I bet you do! So you can trust that you probably possess a fairly good audio memory. But just like the audio components you'll use, it's not perfect.
As far as the other part of AJinFLA's statement that you would have to be present at the recording venue at the time of production, in order to be able to replicate live music. He's partially correct. You would need to be present at the recording venue at the time of production and at the location of the mics "IF" you wanted to replicate live music EXACTLY as it was recorded from that specific location. But do you really care if what you hear is from that EXACT location or a representation from a POV 3 ft to the left of that location? I know I don't! Also consider this, there are usually 100's of people at an acoustic event. All of them are at different locations, thus none of them are receiving the exact same ratio of direct to reflected music reaching their ears. In addition if you moved around you'd also start getting a different ratio of direct to reflected music that reached your ears as you moved. In fact I challenge you to do that at the next concert you attend. Move from one side to the other slowly and then from front to back slowly. I'm willing to bet (as I've done it) that although you'll notice some slight changes in the frequency balance of the sound when moving from side to side. You'll probably notice more of a volume change when moving front to back as opposed to levels of change in the frequency balance of the sound. What I'm saying, in so may words is, although frequency balance & volume will shift as you move about, overall it will sound pretty much the same to you. IMHO at most concerts there's just too much information going on to really do any critical listening. Although symponies are a bit easier.
So how does one learn to assemble an audio system that gets as close as possible (within our means) to replicating live music? It's really only done one way and that's by obtaining as much exposure as possible to live unamplified music, via piano's, acoustic guitars, flutes, saxes etc, as you can. So attend Jazz concerts, go to symphonies & listen to friends play their instruments live as much as possible. The reality is that listening to live unamplified musical instruments is the best way to train your ear to know what different instruments actually sound like live. Granted it's not perfect method, but it's a best option we have. Just don't give up learning just because it isn't easy. For in time just like you always recognize the difference between live and recorded music, just like you instantly recognize the voices of your wife, children, boss and others you know well, you'll always recognize the characteristics of a live piano, sax, guitar, flute etc and when it's missing from a recording or audio component. If you'll do this one thing, you'll have an upper hand on many of the others here and elsewhere in recognizing how well a given systen is replicating live music.
Keep enjoying the music -- Thetubeguy1954
It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows. - Epictetus
nt
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
