|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
69.156.196.162
In Reply to: Re: Why not ask Brian about his speaker design physics. posted by David Aiken on March 14, 2007 at 00:52:03:
Hi.(1) No musician wants to play inside a confined cubicle, or even
in a much less confined area, like stair well. It changes the acoustics of the instruments as heard by the players & the listeners alike. Surely you can rehearse everywhere you want, even in a toilet cubicle. Who cares? But for performances, no way, Jose.Chamber music should be played in a music chameber rather than in symphony concert hall. What is that to do with "playing in a confined cubicle" ???? Moot argument.
(2) I never said musical instruments radiate "UNIFORMLY", only you assumed I said so. Every instrument got its characterstic sound waves
dispersion patterns. Even a honky tonk sounds unlike a classical piano. Moot argument.(3) I never said speaker needs to replicate the dispersion patterns of any musical instrument. Your assumption is wrong again.
Any loudspeaker can NEVER replicate the sound patterns of an instrument. Period.Loudspeaker is a electrical-acoustical converter man-made to restore the sound picked up by the recording microphones which is a acoustical-electrical converter. A better designed loudspeaker may be able to do better in its sole function of electrical-acoustical conversion. This is a complex chain action from the pick up microphones to the loudspeakers, electrically alone.
A musical performance is a concerted acoustical radiation pattern to the listener's ears at that particualar position. Some people like to listen on the balcony. But I defintely want my seat be 13th row centre for a symphony concert hall where I believe it gives me the best overall balance of the musical performance+hall acoustics.
As a performance listener, I want to enjoy it in a distance to receive the total sonic perspectives there rather than do so on the stage in the close proximity of the performers & the musical instruments.
Any recordings made from the live performance in a concert hall or in a recording studio alike is s very compromise reproduction of the live event. That's why recorded music reproduction, no matter how good it could be, is only a lesser alternative to the live event.
It is therefore the job of the recording team to make it happen as close as possible to the live events. That's why we find recordings of the same title sound so different from one another due to so many factors involved. Some we find are "good" recordings & some are "bad".
It's therefore our job too, as the listener at home, to make sure the loudspeakers can perform properly by proper positioning with minimum radiation obstruction.
Bad positioning of a loudspeaker, as I already posted yesterday, can only do damage than cure. It is not solely a matter of personal preference as to how one would like to play with its toys.
Enjoying reproduced music at home can be a joy if done properly. Using live events as the yardstick is better than do it whatever way one prefers. Some good reference is far better than no reference.
Right?c-J
PS: My elder son is a 24-year veteran (hobby) classical pianist.
I listen to live piano most probably more than many readers here.
Follow Ups:
OK, I misinterpreted your statements on a couple of points.Re your response:
"But I defintely want my seat be 13th row centre for a symphony concert hall where I believe it gives me the best overall balance of the musical performance+hall acoustics."
Really? 13th row centre in every symphony concert hall, regardless of the fact that they all have differences in sizes, different proportions, and different acoustics?
I'd believe you if you said you like to listen in the far field where the reflected sound field makes a strong contribution to the overall mix.
I don't know where "13th row" is in your favourite hall. I prefer to sit around a third of the way back in the seating area of the hall for some halls and some music, but I do go for closer or for further away in some cases.
"Using live events as the yardstick is better than do it whatever way one prefers. Some good reference is far better than no reference. "
I agree, provided we're talking acoustic music performed without microphones in a hall with reasonable acoustics as the yardstick events. I have heard live performances that sounded abysmal and where I would prefer a live recording, had one been made at the eventt, to sound quite a deal different to the real thing. On the other hand not everyone will agree with that premise, either in the way you stated it or in my modified version of it, and those people who don't agree with it are quite justified in pursuing whatever sonic goal they prefer when listening to recordings. The purpose of listening to music is enjoyment and doing so in a way which brings you enjoyment actually makes sense. Why listen to music at home if the way it sounds does not give you joy? I'd rather see someone listening to and enjoying music at home on a system delivering sound that I regarded as unnatural and unnaceptable than see them not listening to the same music because they don't like the way it sounds on the sort of system and setup that you or I prefer. If you want to transfer the view I'm presenting here to literature, I'd rather see someone reading, even if they read pulp fiction I would never be seen dead reading and never read anything I regard as worthwhile, than see them not reading at all because their alternative to not reading was reading my reading choices and they have no interest in my choices.
Having said all that, I also regard live performance and recorded performances as different art forms. What works in one sometimes doesn't work in the other. One also listens very often to some recorded performances, something that is impossible with a live performance, and that changes how and what one listens to and for in the performance, especially as one becomes more familiar with a particular recording. I don't listen to recordings in the same way that I listen at a live performance. I also like to find new things in a recorded performance when I listen to it again and again. I don't want the same experience every time—that becomes boring and then I stop listening to and enjoying that recording. I feel I've "played it out". I personally find a lot of difference between listening to a live performance and listening to a recording and I find nothing wrong in having a system and listening setup at home that presents some things differently to the way I like things presented when I attend a live performance.
I'm prepared to bet that we don't listen to and for the same things in music, even when we're listening to the same music. With classical music I tend to prefer small group works rather than symphonic works these days, and I also like to be able to follow the contribution made by individual performers and/or individual intstruments. Those aspects are also important to me with jazz, which is my main interest these days, and similar preferences apply there. My preferred listening setup for recordings is a near field setup which gives a much closer perspective than I prefer in most live venues I've been in over recent years. That is a personal preference. Others may try to recapture as much of their live performance experience as possible when they listen to recordings. That's their preference. Nothing wrong with that, we don't all have to have the same preferences, but there's no reason to believe that our personal preferences represent the best solution for everyone.
I wholeheartedly agree that one should try to avoid unwanted reflections with the listening room setup but not all reflections are unwanted or avoidable. In the matter of open stands vs stands with a beard, the reflections introduced by the beard can have benefits with SOME speakers, and there are some speakers where the designer actually recommends such a stand, as is apparently the case with the VMPS speakers which prompted the question that started this thread. Restricting their radiation with a beard is apparently the way those speakers are intended to be heard. Some people may have a preference for a stand with a beard for some other speakers. The beard can provide some support at lower frequencies and some listeners may find that benefit outweighs any disadvantages introduced by the beard. The reason for that may be that they find their speakers slightly deficient in the lower frequencies (that may be a speaker problem or a room problem) or it may be a 'sonic taste' preference and they can't find or afford a speaker that gives them quite what they want and the stand with a beard is the best compromise in the situation.
Just because someone does something differently to the way you or I think it should be done doesn't mean that they're indulging a "personal preference as to how they would like to play with their toys". It could well be a considered decision that represents what they regard as the best compromise for them in the situation. To represent all deviations from one way of doing things, whatever the reasons supporting doing it that one way, as degrading the standard of result achievable tends to imply that the deviation stems from ignorance and that if the person making it knew and understood the principles involved in getting good sound they would do it differently. That most definitely is not the case. Many people can and do deviate from the way you or I do things in full knowledge of the principles involved, and they are making a conscious decision to pursue a different sonic goal than you or I. They're making a very informed decision. We may not agree with it, and we don't have to agree with it, but however we want to regard it we should not regard such choices as merely pointless and destructive games being played with toys.
David Aiken
PS: my wife was a pianist and we lived with a piano in the home for 27 years until I sold it after her death. I'm also familiar with the sound of a live piano though I don't hear that sound anywhere near as often these days as I used to. I started playing acoustic and classical guitar over 40 years ago and while I no longer play myself, I still listen to live music which is something I have enjoyed since before I started learning to play an instrument myself.
Hi.It seems to be we are talking 'eye-to-eye'.
Yes, I am a man sticking to routines. Everyday's routines is my bread-&-butter businesses, household works to help out my wife, DIY bench works & Hifi listening if time permits. Likewise, my choice of seat in a concert hall.
Of course, for small chamber musics, I would prefer to be 4th row centre.
I agree with you 100% - use live acoustical performance as the yardstick for any HiFi. But the facts of life is there is seldom any more pure acoustic performances available. Most most of them are now PA enforced. That is the very reason why I choose to sit closer to the stage of a concert so that the masking effect of the PA can be minimized.
That said, live acoustical performance do exist - handily at no cost!
Where? Sunday morning church service. There we can enjoy vocal choirs
with or without piano & live instrument accompanyment.I am not religious despite my wife, & my two sons are. I only knew this when I attended my son's piano tutor's weddng in a small chapel many years back. There was a 8 member small choir delivering what I called it music from the heaven above. So real, so live & yet so tranquil. Only a piano, no PA.
Every boils down to its phyics. If an loudspeaker manufacturer specifies something not in line of the acoutic basic phyiscs. Why not try a different way & listen and/or measure the difference. See which way could be better.
When a blockade stand is recommanded for a loudspeaker, to me it is somewhat not in line of physics. Either the design needed a blockade stand to flatten up its frequency response, or for whatever reasons.
But as your said, room acoustics can have a better say than manufacturer's specification. Why not try it out & compare?When I found my KEF 2-way bookshelf loudspeakers did not sound right - ringing like hell due to its metallic dome tweeter (despite it was used to build BBC monitors). I replaced its tweeter with a Norway SEAS 1.5" soft fabric dome tweeter. I also rebuit its mikey mouse type X-over network to a discrete bi-wired network with large PP film capacitors.
It sounds so much better like a wholly resurrection. You believe every word the manufacfurer tells you? I don't until I test it.
c-J
PS: sorry to know you miss your wife's piano playing.
"When a blockade stand is recommanded for a loudspeaker, to me it is somewhat not in line of physics. Either the design needed a blockade stand to flatten up its frequency response, or for whatever reasons."Well, designers do at times design speakers specifically for placement close to walls. Rooms in the UK are often smaller than in the US or here in Australia and some English speakers have been designed for placement against a wall simply to make it easier for people to use them in small rooms. A lot of the BBC studio designs are designed to work very well close to or against walls simply because studio space can be extremely limited, especially a mobile studio, and on occasion can make a small room seem like ample space by comparison. Roy Allison designed a range of speakers years ago that were designed to be placed against walls in order to work with, rather than against boundary effects. And, of course, Paul Klipsch designed the classic Klipschorn for corner placement so that the walls effectively expanded the size of the horn mouth.
I think a good speaker is one that's designed to work well in the sort of placement for which it is designed and I'd actually like to see a little more work done on designing speakers for use closer to, against, or even in walls.
One good thing about the expanding home theatre market is that we are now starting to see more attention being given to such speakers. If it's sometimes hard to place 2 speakers far enough out into the room in order to get them performing at their best, it's considerably harder, probably a fair bit more than twice as hard, to get 5 speakers far enough away from the walls to sound their best while still keeping them all far enough away from the listening position to allow proper driver integration and to also allow seating for quite a few more people than often want to listen to music. You really start to need a quite large room to accommodate a 5.1 surround system with speakers placed well away from walls and it gets worse again as you move up to 6.1 and 7.1 systems. Just to throw an element of nightmare into this scenario, a day or two ago I read an interview with Tolminson Holman of THX fame who was talking about work on a 10.2 system. I've got a separate AV system which is 5.1 channel and based around 2 pairs of identical floorstanders for the front and surround channels, and that system looks a little like Easter Island on a bad day. Doing 10.2 with freestanding speakers would be my idea of hell. I'm forced into using free standing speakers for the 5.1 system, however, because that system is in an open plan area where there is no right wall between the space where the system is set up and the dining area adjacent. The only reason I can get away with it is because my wife isn't around or it would be a 3.1 system at most. There are definitely advantages to living alone
I've always had a dedicated room for the 2 channel audio system since moving to this huse, and I've always had the speakers out in the middle of the room in an Audio Physic style setup here. To some degree that's really 'letting your freak flag fly' as David Crosby once put it. I really enjoy the sound of that system and appreciate the benefits that came with being able to get the speakers much further away from the walls than they were in my previous home, but I'm also practical enough to acknowledge that most people don't have a room where they can put the speakers 2 metres in front of one wall and 1.3 metres or so away from the side walls. In a lot of cases, up against the walls or tucked into the corners would genuinely be the most practical placements from a utilitarian viewpoint. It's good to actually see more attention being given to 'real world' friendly placement options, even if they're not what I'm looking for for either of my systems.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: