What's the audiophile word for this...? - Page 2

Nope, 3d is a good way to put it. I used the 3d analogy in my post. Imaging is the most common term I have heard. Recreating the spatial image of instruments.

You want 3D sound, and good imaging?

A Princeton scientist chose Ascend Acoustic CBM-170SE speakers to work with 3D sound.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...nds-like/8377/

http://forum.ascendacoustics.com/showthread.php?t=4594

If we're talking music and not movies, it's been years since most recordings really presented decent soundstages. Aside from little sweeteners here and there, the stereo in most recordings is about 80% nothing more than the stereo echo return and some phase effects or digital delay purposely created by digital processing.

I used to use an Apt-Holman preamp which had a phase control which you could set to left minus right, which left you with just the difference (stereo) part of the signal. Most of the time on modern recordings, all you hear is the echo return plus sometimes a little lead guitar or cymbal.

I think movies are better at creating spread, but not necessarily a sound stage, as they tend to keep the soundtrack music out of the center so that you can hear the dialogue. It will be interesting to see how mixers use the new Dolby Atmos format for theatres, which lays an object oriented mixing approach on top of the traditional channel approach so that you can place a mono sound anywhere in a 3D space. (Although I don't see why you couldn't send two or more objects at the same time to different points and create a sound field out of them).

Maybe I should have thrown in the phrase "relatively speaking" when I compared the two different systems (to get the discussion started, I was using generalities just to get the basic idea across).

I still think dipoles/bipoles are adding much more than the artist & engineer originally intended - I have never seen such speakers used as studio monitors - hence my opinion that the image they create is partly artificial (yep I am aware of room reflections and how most stereo images are created in a mixing console....except for certain recordings, like RCA's "Living Stereo" series [as you know, they used three mics for those classic recordings, but we'll not get into that here!]).

The first time I clearly heard front-to-back imaging was while auditioning a pair of B&W 801s way back in the early 80s. Amplification was McIntosh and the source was a huge Denon turntable with one of those Servo Tracer tonearms. Album was Supertramp's Breakfast In America. That was an eye-opening 15 minutes & really enjoyed myself. But a few years later my enthusiasm for that time was tempered a bit because I read somewhere that the vinyl format, particularly the cartridge, introduced certain phase-related distortions which supposedly added a dollop of three dimensionality to any music it carried (this would help explain why so many audiophiles at the time thought the image CDs produced sounded overly "flat" in comparison).

You threw in a "IMO", so you're partially covered. I speak at the wider audience as factually as possible.


Perhaps. Have no clue, never contacted a single artist from my 1000s CDs (Have you?). Nor would I care, since I own it(music) to please me, not them. I sit in my living room, not the artist. Perhaps your outlook is vice versa?


Right, nor will you see any soffit mount UREIs or tissue covered NS10s in my room, except maybe in the trash can. Once again, I'm not chasing shadows. My concern is what sounds spatially realistic to me, in my room. Not delusions of "accuracy" to an imagined "accuracy".


Partly artificial artificial? What part of stereo is a construct don't you understand? Monopole stereo speaker stereo is "unartificial"?


...and the list goes on, tubes, etc, etc...less sterile...less artificial. More realistic. Like multipoles.

cheers,

AJ

btw, what is your favorite donut???

What the producer intended.....

I am tired of that phrase. Nobody knows what he/she intended. Why chase ghosts?

^^^

Baseline. We all must start somewhere, and if accuracy of the system to produce the source as it was recorded is not a valid baseline then both manufacturers and consumers have been doing it wrong for a very long time.

What would you propose as an alternative?

The only alternative is to buy speakers that please you, whether they represent the producers intent or not.

Reenforced when you hear people say they auditioned speakers that had great soundstage, with a wall of sound coming to them, which sounds like the opposite of what I want.

I have heard all these terms used, as well as 'air'... around the vocals, instruments, etc. Although, I believe the most common terms are soundstage and imaging (both left to right, and front to back).

Different speaker designs will have an effect on this, as well as speaker/listener position within the room.

That's not a baseline, which is what I asked.

I called it faerie dust

whether its because I'm closer to the sound, or the stellar imaging from these speakers is creating an illusion, its the first time I've realized I was listening to music and not speakers. The best analogy I can come up with - its like little winged creatures sprinkled faerie dust in the air, right in front of my monitor.

I bought a pair of bookshelf speakers to use on my desktop, the Mordaunt Short Carnival 2 - probably because of my close proximity to them while listening - was the first speakers I've owned to provide transparent imaging. Previously not a big priority in choosing speakers, it became high on my list for choosing mains in my home theater. This quest brought me to RAAL ribbon tweeters, Salk and ultimately Philharmonic Audio which, if owners are to be believed, provide an incredible soundstage.

Nethawk, please explain to us how you are verifying the "accuracy" of each recording you play back, to the "intent of the artist/engineer". The actual method, not imagination, thanks.
I've never seen a Raal/altar in a studio over the past 30yrs, so this ought to be fascinating.

cheers,

AJ

Chose, or those are the speakers he had on hand?

If I could argue for buying speakers using grant money, I wouldn't buy $350 speakers!

He apparently had specific needs, called Ascend, and asked for a lot of different measurements.

Dave wasn't even aware of the article until someone posted it.


Agreed! I read a lot of other related material to the article and research. Another speaker that was used was the GedLee Nathan....which had the highest level of directivity that the the professor had measured, which is he said is an important part of this research...and shied away from horn speakers because he said most of them added spectral coloration.

Here's a video of the professor talking about the research. There are some scenes with the CBM-170 in action. There is also another speaker, but I don't know what it is.
http://www.princeton.edu/3D3A/

It is pretty interesting stuff.

Who are you quoting? It's not me.

I never said I was verifying the accuracy of any recordings I was playing back, rather as a baseline for speakers choice accuracy of those speakers has to be high on the list.

Your last statement indicates you're looking for entertainment, your last few posts have shown your willingness to tear people apart. Go play your little games with someone else, I'm not interested.

Are you sure? I thought he measured a bunch including the Ascends, but found the GedLee Nathans more suitable to the more serious parts of his experiment, because they had the best directivity control of the speakers he measured.

Perhaps you can alert AVS that someone has hijacked your account and is posting stuff under your name without consent? That's who I quoted, verbatim, so there is no ambiguity. Sorry about the mix up.

cheers,

AJ

Check what YOU put in quotes.

Maybe when you're back on your medication I'll play.

That's ok. It was your argument that was absurd. Doesn't make you foolish, unless you stick to it rather than think. Since clearly you wish to avoid supporting to your claim and resorting to knee jerk reactionary ad hominem, we can add it the scrap heap of nonsensical beliefs repeated without thought.

cheers,

AJ

You're making things up. What you claim I said was neither written nor intended. Go back and re-read, or find someone else for your trivial arguments. I'm not impressed.

Did you read the other part of my post?

Not sure about the GedLees being more suitable for the more serious parts of his research, but definitely important. What you say may very well be the case.

As far as the demonstration was concerned, for the author of the story, it was done with the Ascends.

Much like what I, and I'm sure others have done with your "nonsensical" (see how that works?) attacks the last few days. I can only presume its your medication doses, as the AJ previously observed was someone I enjoyed, and even sometimes learned from.

Seriously, you're off the track. If you continue to read anything but what I have clearly stated, then my previous assessment of you was clearly wrong, and my present conclusion will remain. I don't give a rat's ass what the producer/artist intended, and never stated anything of the sort. I only care that my speakers are capable of reproduction of what's delivered to me as a consumer as accurately as possible.

Ahh, nuances are lost in the mobile app. I didn't catch the bolded, underlined, increased font of this quote, which I clearly made:

if accuracy of the system to produce the source as it was recorded

As an "amateur" (this is fun!) "manufacturer" (yippee!) surely you can understand that speakers should be accurate, no? If not, your prospective customers should be informed without delay. Perhaps this concept is "absurd", and it's all a matter of semantics.

I'll stick with my methodology for purchasing, you stick with yours for manufacturing. I can assure you, since your perception of speaker accuracy is among a "heap of nonsensical beliefs" the two will never come together.

cheers,

NH

Great, we're on the same page.


Therein lies the issue. The thread is about spatial/imaging/reproduction. How do you know your reproduction is as "accurate as possible"(your words)? That's what I was asking. Now instead of getting mad at me, think it through. What is the reference A/B check? How does one determine spatial accuracy to a stereo construct you weren't there for? Even if you were, you just said you don't give a rodents posterior what was intended.
So how is that going to result in "accuracy"??


cheers,

AJ

Amplitude on every axis, yes, That I strive for. That is a achievable, realistic goal.
Spatial accuracy? To what? Please tell me how I get there, I'll do my best to engineer it into my product.

cheers,

AJ

I use an Altec Lansing 2.0 set myself, and while they're hardly good speakers in most respects, they do indeed image very well (enough to notice).


I would guess that he approached Ascend Acoustics because of the design philosophy (accuracy and focus on measurements) and quality control there (all units measured and pairs matched for consistently good imaging). He also requested and received additional data from the company's owner and engineer.


The odd thing is that the CBM-170 SE is not designed for high directivity, and really only becomes directional above 10 kHz (or a bit higher), while the deep waveguide on the Nathan naturally helps make it more directional at lower frequencies.


The other speaker looks like the Nathan, mounted with the tweeter on the bottom.


Right, for use in conjunction with his special crosstalk cancellation filters, high directivity helps. This doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the normal soundstage of a speaker playing regular stereo material, by the way--in fact, it might narrow the perceived soundstage, and some folks even prefer omnidirectional speakers. For the purposes of this project, however, it is preferable to have as much control over as many variables as possible. Speakers that "beam" their sound are not necessarily favored around here, but that's exactly what Professor Choueiri is looking for.

Yes, therein lies the issue. You're in a bullying mood these days, you see one word that is not directed at you, and swoop in to play your games.

Tell ya what. Maybe someone will IM me when you become normal again. Until then, strive for spatial accuracy in the fights you pick.