Speaker Shootout - two of the most accurate and well reviewed speakers ever made - Page 37 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 1871Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1081 of 1751 Old 08-24-2017, 02:24 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
torii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 6,703
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3325 Post(s)
Liked: 1877
from what I have heard with Be tweeters, once they get into affordable for me price domain/design...is the ticket.

Power: Marantz sr7008, NAD C 275Bee x 2, Video: Oppo 103, Samsung 75un6300
Speakers: Focal aria 948, Focal cc900, Klipsch synergy KSF 10.5, Magnepan LRS
Subs: Rythmik FV25HP, Rythmik FV15HP
torii is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1082 of 1751 Old 08-24-2017, 02:31 PM
Senior Member
 
awediophile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 409
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 295 Post(s)
Liked: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotth3886 View Post
"I think in so far as imaging, sound-stage, spaciousness, etc. are concerned, we should not forget the room"

I think another contributing factor is that I have an ambient noise level of 18db in this room where it was 30db in the previous house and 25 to 30db upstairs. That 12db alone helps uncover a big bunch of low level ambient information such as HVAC cycling on and off in a venue, bus and truck traffic outside, etc, etc. These are recordings that in most cases, I've had for four to six decades, and now much of that info has been uncovered, but what else is there?
I unfortunately have to suffer through HVAC noise in the summer and periodically during the winter when the heat cycles. It's not especially well designed and is a bit noisy. It's remarkable how much the sound improves when I shut it off, even when the volume is up high enough to not hear it.

With that said, it's nowhere near as bad as it used to be after I upgraded my speakers. The old speakers had narrower dispersion and less consistent off-axis response than the new speakers. The new speakers are very clean off-axis. The difference was night-and-day. Low level details are *much* easier to hear with the HVAC running than they were before, and low level listening is much better in general. FWIW, I've heard many people comment on the quality of low level listening with the M2s, so there may be something to either wider dispersion, more consistent dispersion, or both improving overall audibility of the content.
awediophile is offline  
post #1083 of 1751 Old 08-24-2017, 02:44 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 72 Post(s)
Liked: 54
edits

>> Long story short, four corners are optimum

I'm a little lost but have not kept up. There are seemingly recent (maybe I'm mistaken about that) Welti slides showing / recommending 4 @ midwall and also 2 @ midwall. Has this thinking been superseded? Are we back to where things were when people starting buying their first Hsus 25y ago? With magazine and experts' articles saying 'Stick it first in the corner, and then experiment ... '

Two further points I bet many here know:

- You can always place the sub where you sit, play noise, and then crawl around the floor with your cool smartphone RTA and see what it shows for smoothness / lack of smoothness at various locations. Do this when no one's home .

- Much of the LF everyone loves is not all that low --- 35-50Hz, slammin' Transformers and Star Wars cruisers and explosions, etc. (Take some measurements and you'll see.) That range and above it are the area to be made as smooth as feasible as widely as possible. Below it, in most listening rooms, for VLF, for the octave below 25Hz, certainly 20Hz and below, positional experimentation is less important --- the whole room's a corner, practically.

Last edited by davidrmoran; 08-24-2017 at 02:50 PM. Reason: fixes
davidrmoran is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1084 of 1751 Old 08-24-2017, 03:00 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,729
Mentioned: 91 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2001 Post(s)
Liked: 2497
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidrmoran View Post
>> Long story short, four corners are optimum

I'm a little lost but have not kept up. There are seemingly recent (maybe I'm mistaken about that) Welti slides showing / recommending 4 @ midwall and also 2 @ midwall. Has this thinking been superseded?
My understanding is that midwall is optimum, but at a pretty substantial loss in efficiency, while corner placement means maximized efficiency with little to no sacrifice in performance.

John Schuermann
The Screening Room Home Theater Sales and Design
JS Music and Sound Film Scoring and Sound Design
John Schuermann is offline  
post #1085 of 1751 Old 08-24-2017, 03:31 PM
Senior Member
 
awediophile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 409
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 295 Post(s)
Liked: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post

[...]

That done, with smooth non-resonant bass, the overall spectral balance is a moving target. Many people for movies like significant boost for impressive sound effects, others are more moderated. For music, the circle of confusion is very obvious and some cuts are mixed - especially a lot of great older material - with insufficient low bass. Sometimes there simply is nothing there to boost - 30 ips analog tape has little or nothing below about 50 Hz. Other material was obvious mixed for, as I call them, the bass-deprived masses, and turning the bass control down is a tasteful action.

Or you can make one setting and take it as it comes. For me one setting does not fit all programs. The problem is that tone controls in digital gear are sometimes a pain in the butt to operate - not like old fashioned knobs :-(. So sometimes I just get lazy and put up with it.
I think most of this is variation in bass level is purposeful rather than necessarily "circle of confusion". In most acoustic music like orchestral music, bass tends to be naturally weak and heard mostly in the reverberant field anyway. The exception might be large drums. I've heard it said that orchestras always struggle to recruit enough players for the string bass section because it's just never loud enough. I reckon that subtlety in the bass is just what people were used to in days past.

That all changed over the last several decades with the evolution of music to rock-and-roll and then to various dance (starting with disco) and electronic forms, and of course, subwoofers were invented. Before long, entire music genres arose that were oriented around bass (drum and bass, ambient/dub leading to dub step) and these styles fed back into the popular music of today.

Today's masses are very much bass deprived. Just look at some of the subwoofer systems people build over the in the DIY sub-forum. Even I'm running a measly 4 x 21" (high output / high excursion) sub system powered by 12 kW. At least my needs for music and for movies above 20 Hz are taken care of, but I could definitely use more below for the movies.

The important consideration when evaluating bass levels in a recording (and/or on a playback system) is how the fundamental tones in the subwoofer range balance out with the harmonics. Many people run their subs too hot (not always intentionally) so that the fundamental overwhelms and masks the harmonics. This can cause instruments like the string bass to lose their timbrel character and harm intelligibility of the rhythm and tone, even when resonances are adequately controlled. The resulting sound can be very slow sounding. It can even paradoxically make the bass sound quieter. Too little sub, on the other hand is thin and lacks weight and depth. Transient response can also be poorly defined with too little sub.

In the above respects, I find bass level to be fairly consistent between tracks. (There are always exceptions.) Sure, some tracks have bass that's a lot louder than on other tracks, but this appears to have been done in the mix with both fundamental and harmonics mixed hotter and not the fundamental alone.

Indeed, I find that in the purest sense, subwoofer bass isn't really loud, especially below 70 Hz or so. Almost all the loudness comes from the contribution of higher harmonics. The sound of the subwoofer is mostly weight and feeling. I didn't fully appreciate this until I upgraded my subs recently. I was surprised by how much I could crank them up and still not really hear them. I guess most subs output a lot of harmonic distortion, even at low levels, which gives them a characteristic sound. Most of the "sound" of the bass seems to live around and above 100 Hz, even for tones with very low fundamental frequencies.

About harmonic distortion, THD is a largely useless measure because the measurement is usually dominated by 2nd and 3rd harmonics, which are the least audible and least important. I believe it's the higher harmonics that are more important because they are *much* easier to hear at lower levels. Inter-modulation distortion is also probably very important and may correlate with transient response distortion. Most good subwoofer drivers use shorting rings and other strategies to limit effects from inductance non-linearity, which can cause a lot of this distortion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post
BTW, the discussions about reflections, imaging, spaciousness, etc. have been based on listening in pure old fashioned, directionally and spatially deprived stereo. Don't any of you employ upmixers? I know that some of the most popular ones are not optimum, usually too aggressive, but it is possible to manipulate the levels of surround vs. frontal energy, delays, etc. I'm just suggesting that it is so rewarding when it is "right" that I leave it on most of the time. The old Lexicon Logic7 in its full blown, adjustable, implementation was excellent, but those days are past. At the moment my Anthem processor has an "Anthem music" mode that is very tasteful, leaving the stereo soundstage pretty much alone and adding subtle surround envelopment. I will have to start again when I get my SDP75. I'm told that the Auro3D upmixer is good; we'll see. I find upmixing to be a nice addition to a lot of popular music and jazz, and it is especially rewarding for classical repertoire - getting me an important step closer to my visits to the LA Phil concerts. The beauty of upmixing is that it is not a permanent, built-in feature. It is flexible - it even has an "off" button. I suspect that much of the anxiety over optimum loudspeaker dispersion would fade if you were to get it optimized :-)

We need multichannel music, lots of it! With streaming the "format wars" are fading. Some video music concerts are a pleasure to experience in 7.1.
I actually used up-mixing via Dolby PL2x when I first gained the capability, but after I made improvements to my room and system, I stopped using it. I reached a point where my front left and right sounded so much better than the center and surrounds that the extra channels detracted from the sound quality. The front left and right also provided the envelopment and panning cues I heard in the surround up-mix and in a way that sounded more proportionate and realistic.

I did play with the optional controls a fair bit, but they weren't all that useful. Another thing I noticed with up-mixing is that the low frequencies changed a lot and not usually for the better. They generally sounded weaker in the up-mixed mode than they did in 2 channel mode. IIRC, it varied a lot by mix, which did not give me a lot of confidence in the system. A lot of this may have to do with the way Dolby attempts to maintain equal energy when it applies the dematrixing, but I don't know.

I may revisit this problem someday when I get more time and can experiment with my own algorithms, now that I have completely custom processing capability. That'll probably wait until I have good interactively adjustable tone controls though.
awediophile is offline  
post #1086 of 1751 Old 08-24-2017, 03:34 PM
Member
 
Floyd Toole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: California
Posts: 733
Mentioned: 77 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 765 Post(s)
Liked: 2746
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidrmoran View Post
>> Long story short, four corners are optimum

I'm a little lost but have not kept up. There are seemingly recent (maybe I'm mistaken about that) Welti slides showing / recommending 4 @ midwall and also 2 @ midwall. Has this thinking been superseded? Are we back to where things were when people starting buying their first Hsus 25y ago? With magazine and experts' articles saying 'Stick it first in the corner, and then experiment ... '

Two further points I bet many here know:

- You can always place the sub where you sit, play noise, and then crawl around the floor with your cool smartphone RTA and see what it shows for smoothness / lack of smoothness at various locations. Do this when no one's home .

- Much of the LF everyone loves is not all that low --- 35-50Hz, slammin' Transformers and Star Wars cruisers and explosions, etc. (Take some measurements and you'll see.) That range and above it are the area to be made as smooth as feasible as widely as possible. Below it, in most listening rooms, for VLF, for the octave below 25Hz, certainly 20Hz and below, positional experimentation is less important --- the whole room's a corner, practically.
David, look back to post 1075 for the latest Welti reference. Mid wall positions (four of them) yield the smallest seat-to seat variation by a small margin, but at a horrendous efficiency loss. Four corners are an easy win. Look at Figure 13.17 in my "old" book (I still have not seen my new one :-(

I agree with your general comments about low frequencies in music, but now that I have some time to listen and explore, I have found several very attractive and imaginative modern pieces that use organ pedal frequencies - whether they heard them or not during the mix is a good question.
Ericglo and Jan3 like this.

Last edited by Floyd Toole; 08-24-2017 at 03:41 PM.
Floyd Toole is online now  
post #1087 of 1751 Old 08-24-2017, 03:37 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
DonH50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Monument CO
Posts: 12,116
Mentioned: 66 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3152 Post(s)
Liked: 3101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post
I still have not seen my new one :-(
Amazon told me Tuesday Aug 29... Let me know if you need me to copy any pages for you for reference.

"After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music" - Aldous Huxley
DonH50 is online now  
post #1088 of 1751 Old 08-24-2017, 03:40 PM
Senior Member
 
awediophile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 409
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 295 Post(s)
Liked: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post
My understanding is that midwall is optimum, but at a pretty substantial loss in efficiency, while corner placement means maximized efficiency with little to no sacrifice in performance.
Correct. Mid wall placements often yield quite terrible efficiency.
John Schuermann likes this.
awediophile is offline  
post #1089 of 1751 Old 08-24-2017, 04:07 PM
Member
 
Floyd Toole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: California
Posts: 733
Mentioned: 77 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 765 Post(s)
Liked: 2746
Quote:
Originally Posted by awediophile View Post
I think most of this is variation in bass level is purposeful rather than necessarily "circle of confusion". In most acoustic music like orchestral music, bass tends to be naturally weak and heard mostly in the reverberant field anyway. The exception might be large drums. I've heard it said that orchestras always struggle to recruit enough players for the string bass section because it's just never loud enough. I reckon that subtlety in the bass is just what people were used to in days past.

That all changed over the last several decades with the evolution of music to rock-and-roll and then to various dance (starting with disco) and electronic forms, and of course, subwoofers were invented. Before long, entire music genres arose that were oriented around bass (drum and bass, ambient/dub leading to dub step) and these styles fed back into the popular music of today.

Today's masses are very much bass deprived. Just look at some of the subwoofer systems people build over the in the DIY sub-forum. Even I'm running a measly 4 x 21" (high output / high excursion) sub system powered by 12 kW. At least my needs for music and for movies above 20 Hz are taken care of, but I could definitely use more below for the movies.

The important consideration when evaluating bass levels in a recording (and/or on a playback system) is how the fundamental tones in the subwoofer range balance out with the harmonics. Many people run their subs too hot (not always intentionally) so that the fundamental overwhelms and masks the harmonics. This can cause instruments like the string bass to lose their timbrel character and harm intelligibility of the rhythm and tone, even when resonances are adequately controlled. The resulting sound can be very slow sounding. It can even paradoxically make the bass sound quieter. Too little sub, on the other hand is thin and lacks weight and depth. Transient response can also be poorly defined with too little sub.

In the above respects, I find bass level to be fairly consistent between tracks. (There are always exceptions.) Sure, some tracks have bass that's a lot louder than on other tracks, but this appears to have been done in the mix with both fundamental and harmonics mixed hotter and not the fundamental alone.

Indeed, I find that in the purest sense, subwoofer bass isn't really loud, especially below 70 Hz or so. Almost all the loudness comes from the contribution of higher harmonics. The sound of the subwoofer is mostly weight and feeling. I didn't fully appreciate this until I upgraded my subs recently. I was surprised by how much I could crank them up and still not really hear them. I guess most subs output a lot of harmonic distortion, even at low levels, which gives them a characteristic sound. Most of the "sound" of the bass seems to live around and above 100 Hz, even for tones with very low fundamental frequencies.

About harmonic distortion, THD is a largely useless measure because the measurement is usually dominated by 2nd and 3rd harmonics, which are the least audible and least important. I believe it's the higher harmonics that are more important because they are *much* easier to hear at lower levels. Inter-modulation distortion is also probably very important and may correlate with transient response distortion. Most good subwoofer drivers use shorting rings and other strategies to limit effects from inductance non-linearity, which can cause a lot of this distortion.



I actually used up-mixing via Dolby PL2x when I first gained the capability, but after I made improvements to my room and system, I stopped using it. I reached a point where my front left and right sounded so much better than the center and surrounds that the extra channels detracted from the sound quality. The front left and right also provided the envelopment and panning cues I heard in the surround up-mix and in a way that sounded more proportionate and realistic.

I did play with the optional controls a fair bit, but they weren't all that useful. Another thing I noticed with up-mixing is that the low frequencies changed a lot and not usually for the better. They generally sounded weaker in the up-mixed mode than they did in 2 channel mode. IIRC, it varied a lot by mix, which did not give me a lot of confidence in the system. A lot of this may have to do with the way Dolby attempts to maintain equal energy when it applies the dematrixing, but I don't know.

I may revisit this problem someday when I get more time and can experiment with my own algorithms, now that I have completely custom processing capability. That'll probably wait until I have good interactively adjustable tone controls though.
The evidence of variable bass levels in control rooms is best exemplified by a large survey by Genelec. 250 measurements were made in many recording control rooms using essentially the same loudspeakers. I attach a figure from my old book.
Mäkivirta, A.V. and Anet, C. (2001). “A Survey Study of In-Situ Stereo And Multi-channel Monitoring Conditions”. 111th Convention, Audio Eng. Soc., Preprint 5496.
If this is what recording engineers are hearing, it is no surprise that bass levels in recordings are variable.

Re upmixers. The following paper found huge differences in preference.
Rumsey, F. (1999). “Controlled subjective assessments of two-to-five-channel surround sound processing algorithms”. J. Audio Eng. Soc., 47, pp. 563-562.
The winner was Lexicon's Logic7 (RIP). There were those who preferred stereo too. The authors thought that some of the listeners might have been less than objective, though. I have found the Dolby and DTS offerings not to my liking for music.
I guess I have a consideration that many don't - I don't always listen alone, so sharing the experience is a factor. This is best done with multichannel assistance. But even alone, I happen to like it. Chacun a son gout (no accents, sorry).
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Fig. 2.4 Genelec data.jpg (542.5 KB, 54 views)
John Schuermann likes this.
Floyd Toole is online now  
post #1090 of 1751 Old 08-24-2017, 04:25 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,729
Mentioned: 91 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2001 Post(s)
Liked: 2497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hifisound View Post
Superb measurements of the earlier version too - https://www.stereophile.com/content/...r-measurements

Infinity P36x would have been a good speaker to DBT along with the big shots.

Also a design question : Like the 3-way P363x uses a 3/4th inch tweeter, wouldn't the 3-way/4-way Revels have benefited from a 3/4th inch tweeter in the HF dispersion ? I am sure there is a strong reason, and would like to understand that.
Got this back from Mark Glazer, head engineer at Revel:

Hi John:

¾ inch tweeters have a quite smaller diameter coil which would therefore compress dynamics plus lack power handling and only suitable for lower budget systems. 1 inch tweeters have adequate HF dispersion also.
Hifisound likes this.

John Schuermann
The Screening Room Home Theater Sales and Design
JS Music and Sound Film Scoring and Sound Design
John Schuermann is offline  
post #1091 of 1751 Old 08-24-2017, 04:51 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
notnyt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 10,197
Mentioned: 315 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3731 Post(s)
Liked: 3705
Quote:
Originally Posted by torii View Post
from what I have heard with Be tweeters, once they get into affordable for me price domain/design...is the ticket.
I got these lovelies at 550/pc. price isn't too bad. That's 4". I think price has gone up slightly over the last few years, so unless there's a way to reproduce them cheaper with volume, don't hold your breath too much for Be prices to drop.

torii likes this.

Last edited by notnyt; 08-24-2017 at 04:55 PM.
notnyt is offline  
post #1092 of 1751 Old 08-24-2017, 04:56 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 7,770
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3754 Post(s)
Liked: 2303
Quote:
Originally Posted by awediophile View Post
I unfortunately have to suffer through HVAC noise in the summer and periodically during the winter when the heat cycles. It's not especially well designed and is a bit noisy. It's remarkable how much the sound improves when I shut it off, even when the volume is up high enough to not hear it.

With that said, it's nowhere near as bad as it used to be after I upgraded my speakers. The old speakers had narrower dispersion and less consistent off-axis response than the new speakers. The new speakers are very clean off-axis. The difference was night-and-day. Low level details are *much* easier to hear with the HVAC running than they were before, and low level listening is much better in general. FWIW, I've heard many people comment on the quality of low level listening with the M2s, so there may be something to either wider dispersion, more consistent dispersion, or both improving overall audibility of the content.

My HVAC is also down there. I have to heat it up or cool it down and shut things off. It's pointless to try to do any serious listening with it on. It raises 18db up to 32db so it means run upstairs and kill it.
Scotth3886 is offline  
post #1093 of 1751 Old 08-24-2017, 05:01 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 72 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post
David, look back to post 1075 for the latest Welti reference. Mid wall positions (four of them) yield the smallest seat-to seat variation by a small margin, but at a horrendous efficiency loss. Four corners are an easy win. Look at Figure 13.17 in my "old" book (I still have not seen my new one :-(

I agree with your general comments about low frequencies in music, but now that I have some time to listen and explore, I have found several very attractive and imaginative modern pieces that use organ pedal frequencies - whether they heard them or not during the mix is a good question.
Oh, sorry, I was speaking (I intended to be speaking) only of LF in nonmusical program. Lots of VLF in music, absolutely, apologies for lack of clarity (meaning I omitted anything about program type), and mostly organ, yes, even non-modern. For some reason a couple of the hoariest and most prominent sources are by Mendelssohn. Plus the BAS test CD cut of Saint-Saens (which CD also has a nice Logic7 compatibility cut from Griesinger).

I am about to employ a Harman receiver (from some time ago, not new) preamp section for side channel upmixing, if anyone knows anything about its algorithms.

I am interested in the inefficiency claims. Not sure it matters since power's cheap and the good subs are pretty low-distortion and hit high levels. But in any case we must be talking about room 'help' at 30-40Hz and up to 100Hz or whatever, since midwall location is for 20Hz little different in boost from corner location.

OT, since mention was made of the modest aim of the excellent Infinity P362, I should have noted that I'm told by the person I sold them to that all the surrounds are shot, which would be astonishing after less than a decade since manufacture.
davidrmoran is offline  
post #1094 of 1751 Old 08-24-2017, 05:05 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 72 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post
Got this back from Mark Glazer, head engineer at Revel:

Hi John:

¾ inch tweeters have a quite smaller diameter coil which would therefore compress dynamics plus lack power handling and only suitable for lower budget systems. 1 inch tweeters have adequate HF dispersion also.
>> 1 inch tweeters have adequate HF dispersion

Right, spoken by someone who uses them and does not notice or care about their airlessness compared with wider-dispersion designs.

If you are going to use 1" tweets, the best thing you can do to save their performance is put them on as small a spherical or otherwise smoothed baffle as possible. B&W-style, and there are other designs.

Last edited by davidrmoran; 08-24-2017 at 05:07 PM. Reason: fix
davidrmoran is offline  
post #1095 of 1751 Old 08-24-2017, 05:13 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 15,125
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2755 Post(s)
Liked: 2662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post
BTW, the discussions about reflections, imaging, spaciousness, etc. have been based on listening in pure old fashioned, directionally and spatially deprived stereo. Don't any of you employ upmixers? I know that some of the most popular ones are not optimum, usually too aggressive, but it is possible to manipulate the levels of surround vs. frontal energy, delays, etc. I'm just suggesting that it is so rewarding when it is "right" that I leave it on most of the time.
I heartily agree!

I have a two-channel high end system, but I listen very often to music upmixed via my AVR to to surround on my HT surround system. (I chose HT speakers that I loved for music, not only for sound effects).

Some of the modes can be too aggressive, as you mention, sometimes making everything sound like it's being played in a big hall. But I've found a mode I like, have tweaked it in the same way you have, and I just leave it there. I love listening to music that way. There's also a sense of scale to the sound - a very realistic sense of instrumental power and size (maybe it's all those additional speakers/drivers brought to bear on the sound?) - that is really gratifying.
R Harkness is offline  
post #1096 of 1751 Old 08-24-2017, 05:31 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 7,770
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3754 Post(s)
Liked: 2303
Quote:
Originally Posted by awediophile View Post
I think most of this is variation in bass level is purposeful rather than necessarily "circle of confusion". In most acoustic music like orchestral music, bass tends to be naturally weak and heard mostly in the reverberant field anyway. The exception might be large drums. I've heard it said that orchestras always struggle to recruit enough players for the string bass section because it's just never loud enough. I reckon that subtlety in the bass is just what people were used to in days past.

That all changed over the last several decades with the evolution of music to rock-and-roll and then to various dance (starting with disco) and electronic forms, and of course, subwoofers were invented. Before long, entire music genres arose that were oriented around bass (drum and bass, ambient/dub leading to dub step) and these styles fed back into the popular music of today.

Today's masses are very much bass deprived. Just look at some of the subwoofer systems people build over the in the DIY sub-forum. Even I'm running a measly 4 x 21" (high output / high excursion) sub system powered by 12 kW. At least my needs for music and for movies above 20 Hz are taken care of, but I could definitely use more below for the movies.

The important consideration when evaluating bass levels in a recording (and/or on a playback system) is how the fundamental tones in the subwoofer range balance out with the harmonics. Many people run their subs too hot (not always intentionally) so that the fundamental overwhelms and masks the harmonics. This can cause instruments like the string bass to lose their timbrel character and harm intelligibility of the rhythm and tone, even when resonances are adequately controlled. The resulting sound can be very slow sounding. It can even paradoxically make the bass sound quieter. Too little sub, on the other hand is thin and lacks weight and depth. Transient response can also be poorly defined with too little sub.

In the above respects, I find bass level to be fairly consistent between tracks. (There are always exceptions.) Sure, some tracks have bass that's a lot louder than on other tracks, but this appears to have been done in the mix with both fundamental and harmonics mixed hotter and not the fundamental alone.

Indeed, I find that in the purest sense, subwoofer bass isn't really loud, especially below 70 Hz or so. Almost all the loudness comes from the contribution of higher harmonics. The sound of the subwoofer is mostly weight and feeling. I didn't fully appreciate this until I upgraded my subs recently. I was surprised by how much I could crank them up and still not really hear them. I guess most subs output a lot of harmonic distortion, even at low levels, which gives them a characteristic sound. Most of the "sound" of the bass seems to live around and above 100 Hz, even for tones with very low fundamental frequencies.

About harmonic distortion, THD is a largely useless measure because the measurement is usually dominated by 2nd and 3rd harmonics, which are the least audible and least important. I believe it's the higher harmonics that are more important because they are *much* easier to hear at lower levels. Inter-modulation distortion is also probably very important and may correlate with transient response distortion. Most good subwoofer drivers use shorting rings and other strategies to limit effects from inductance non-linearity, which can cause a lot of this distortion.



I actually used up-mixing via Dolby PL2x when I first gained the capability, but after I made improvements to my room and system, I stopped using it. I reached a point where my front left and right sounded so much better than the center and surrounds that the extra channels detracted from the sound quality. The front left and right also provided the envelopment and panning cues I heard in the surround up-mix and in a way that sounded more proportionate and realistic.

I did play with the optional controls a fair bit, but they weren't all that useful. Another thing I noticed with up-mixing is that the low frequencies changed a lot and not usually for the better. They generally sounded weaker in the up-mixed mode than they did in 2 channel mode. IIRC, it varied a lot by mix, which did not give me a lot of confidence in the system. A lot of this may have to do with the way Dolby attempts to maintain equal energy when it applies the dematrixing, but I don't know.

I may revisit this problem someday when I get more time and can experiment with my own algorithms, now that I have completely custom processing capability. That'll probably wait until I have good interactively adjustable tone controls though.

"The important consideration when evaluating bass levels in a recording (and/or on a playback system) is how the fundamental tones in the subwoofer range balance out with the harmonics. Many people run their subs too hot (not always intentionally) so that the fundamental overwhelms and masks the harmonics. This can cause instruments like the string bass to lose their timbrel character and harm intelligibility of the rhythm and tone, even when resonances are adequately controlled. The resulting sound can be very slow sounding. It can even paradoxically make the bass sound quieter. Too little sub, on the other hand is thin and lacks weight and depth. Transient response can also be poorly defined with too little sub."


Perfect!!!
Scotth3886 is offline  
post #1097 of 1751 Old 08-24-2017, 05:51 PM
Advanced Member
 
Tomas2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 734
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 455 Post(s)
Liked: 713
I don't know what some are listening to...but most of my 2-ch music library "sound production" wise, are nothing short of masterpiece quality. Here is a short list:

Steely Dan 'Gaucho' (1980)
Steely Dan 'Two Against Nature' (2000)
Sting 'Brand New Day' (1999)
Ben Harper 'Burn to Shine' (1999)
Michael Jackson 'Off the Wall' (1979)
Jewel '0304' (2003)
Peter Gabriel 'Us' (1992)
Donald Fagen 'Morph the Cat' (2006)

Zero circle of confusion and zero lack of bass in my book
Aja and Madmax67 like this.

SAMSUNG QLED | ROTEL | MOREL | M&K | HAFLER | TECHNICS SP-25
Tomas2 is offline  
post #1098 of 1751 Old 08-24-2017, 06:02 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
lefthandluke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dayton, Ohio
Posts: 1,317
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 165 Post(s)
Liked: 312
this thread...fascinating reading
Karl Maga likes this.

at the zenith of his nadir...
lefthandluke is offline  
post #1099 of 1751 Old 08-24-2017, 06:35 PM
Senior Member
 
awediophile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 409
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 295 Post(s)
Liked: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post
The evidence of variable bass levels in control rooms is best exemplified by a large survey by Genelec. 250 measurements were made in many recording control rooms using essentially the same loudspeakers. I attach a figure from my old book.
Mäkivirta, A.V. and Anet, C. (2001). “A Survey Study of In-Situ Stereo And Multi-channel Monitoring Conditions”. 111th Convention, Audio Eng. Soc., Preprint 5496.
If this is what recording engineers are hearing, it is no surprise that bass levels in recordings are variable.
I'm not the least bit surprised, but I imagine that most skilled engineers do their best to work around the problems in their rooms. They work to achieve consistency with preceding content rather than trying to achieve the ideal sound within their own space. Yes this is by definition the circle of confusion at work, but I think they do a remarkably good job. Mastering engineers likely handle a lot of this work, and they may have better rooms or at least rooms that they are more familiar with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post
Re upmixers. The following paper found huge differences in preference.
Rumsey, F. (1999). “Controlled subjective assessments of two-to-five-channel surround sound processing algorithms”. J. Audio Eng. Soc., 47, pp. 563-562.
The winner was Lexicon's Logic7 (RIP). There were those who preferred stereo too. The authors thought that some of the listeners might have been less than objective, though. I have found the Dolby and DTS offerings not to my liking for music.
I guess I have a consideration that many don't - I don't always listen alone, so sharing the experience is a factor. This is best done with multichannel assistance. But even alone, I happen to like it. Chacun a son gout (no accents, sorry).
Interesting. Someone else asked here if that algorithm is publicly known, and I'd be curious about the same. All I've been able to try here are the Dolby and DTS options. If I go my own way with up-mixing, I'd likely do it as part of the overall room EQ process and guiding it using in-room measurement data.
awediophile is offline  
post #1100 of 1751 Old 08-24-2017, 08:45 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
noah katz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Mountain View, CA USA
Posts: 22,642
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1820 Post(s)
Liked: 631
I sure wish SFM was available as a standalone product.

I imagine any SDP75 sales lost from people who bought it because of that would be more than compensated for by the volume of sales at a more affordable price point.

Dr. Toole, any idea if there are plans for that?
DS-21 and Randy Bessinger like this.

Noah

Last edited by noah katz; 08-24-2017 at 08:50 PM.
noah katz is online now  
post #1101 of 1751 Old 08-24-2017, 11:04 PM
Senior Member
 
Hifisound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Bangalore, India
Posts: 380
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidrmoran View Post
>> can anechoic measurements be different from one another?

Yes but only a bit, depending on mike position(s) and any spatial (temporal) averaging. I measured in detail the horizontal radiation pattern of the Infinity P362, which won Olive blind preference tests. Those measurements appeared in LinearAudio, the BAS Speaker, and in a presentation I gave at an NYC AES convention panel. They corresponded pretty closely, but not perfectly, with the even more detailed ones from Harman, taken under different circumstances and with very different technologies and mikes. Details / graphs available to anyone who really cares about this in detail.
Probably the new Infinity Reference 263 would be good as well.

Posting some graphs from the article authored by @davidrmoran







Last edited by Hifisound; 08-24-2017 at 11:13 PM.
Hifisound is offline  
post #1102 of 1751 Old 08-24-2017, 11:21 PM
Senior Member
 
Hifisound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Bangalore, India
Posts: 380
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hifisound View Post
Thanks!

Is there also a target/ideal spinorama ?
Or target should be to have data points in straight lines (except on-axis which in addition should also be flat) and slopes being lesser as much as possible ?

Hifisound is offline  
post #1103 of 1751 Old 08-25-2017, 06:52 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,351
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 871 Post(s)
Liked: 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomas2 View Post
I don't know what some are listening to...but most of my 2-ch music library "sound production" wise, are nothing short of masterpiece quality. Here is a short list:

Steely Dan 'Gaucho' (1980)
Steely Dan 'Two Against Nature' (2000)
Sting 'Brand New Day' (1999)
Ben Harper 'Burn to Shine' (1999)
Michael Jackson 'Off the Wall' (1979)
Jewel '0304' (2003)
Peter Gabriel 'Us' (1992)
Donald Fagen 'Morph the Cat' (2006)

Zero circle of confusion and zero lack of bass in my book

Those are good sounding recordings, but IMO, none of them have the deep, extended, well balanced bass content that "Morph the Cat" has. I use the opening lines of kick drum and bass guitar on the title track to balance subs with mains when mixing FOH and evaluating full range monitors. Most of the Steely Dan catalog is standard reference material for audiophiles and pro audio guys, but "Morph the Cat" takes it to a whole new level. When I first heard that CD, I was shocked at how others I had previously used were lacking in deep bass extension, punch and impact.

I was hired to tune a PA system in a church and I went through a lot of my CD collection to check the sub to mains balance. I couldn't find anything that has low end like "Morph".

I need to do find some newer material, just haven't been looking for a while.
Madmax67 likes this.
Rex Anderson is online now  
post #1104 of 1751 Old 08-25-2017, 08:51 AM
Member
 
Floyd Toole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: California
Posts: 733
Mentioned: 77 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 765 Post(s)
Liked: 2746
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post
I sure wish SFM was available as a standalone product.

I imagine any SDP75 sales lost from people who bought it because of that would be more than compensated for by the volume of sales at a more affordable price point.

Dr. Toole, any idea if there are plans for that?
You are not alone in thinking that. But nobody has been able to convince "management" that there was sufficient business to warrant the investment. SFM is complicated for a market in which customers expect magic solutions at the press of a button or icon.
Floyd Toole is online now  
post #1105 of 1751 Old 08-25-2017, 09:30 AM
Member
 
Floyd Toole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: California
Posts: 733
Mentioned: 77 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 765 Post(s)
Liked: 2746
Quote:
Originally Posted by awediophile View Post
I If I go my own way with up-mixing, I'd likely do it as part of the overall room EQ process and guiding it using in-room measurement data.
Good for you. The advantage of a customized DIY upmixer, and one that I await experimenting with in the SDP75, is that it is possible to manipulate the parameters that are known to be well received/perceived by humans. They include ASW (apparent source width), possibly related to the "air" that audiophiles talk about and LEV (listener envelopment). I discuss these more in the old book than in the new one (a good topic for the website - the new book may never be "finished":-). They require sounds that arrive well outside the +/- 30 deg stereo soundstage - about +/- 60 deg or more apparently being optimum - like the side wall reflections from a rectangular concert hall. The other key parameter is the time of arrival of these lateral sounds. ASW seems to be associated with delays of under about 80 ms, and LEV with delays of 100 ms or more. Research is ongoing. Obviously loudspeaker directivity is not a factor because all in-room reflections arrive far too early - they are associated with the sound source, not the performance space.

Multichannel audio as it exists, 7.1 especially, is a good platform to begin with if the side loudspeakers are placed ahead of the listener rather than at 90 deg or more (which was defined for 5.1 and unfortunately never redefined). The rear loudspeakers do the "flyovers", the side loudspeakers should be optimized for envelopment. The flexibility this offers is enormous. With seven high frequency sources aimed at the listener, off axis performance is not irrelevant, but certainly greatly diminished in importance. One other parameter that now can be manipulated is the simulation of air attenuation which substantially attenuates high frequencies in real performance spaces, something not included in common upmixers.

This is something I experimented with many years ago with the Lexicon CP-1. I added outboard apparatus to do even more than this capable seven-channel device did - and this was in the late 1980s as I recall. I have never lost the desire to pick up that activity and carry on. Once you settle in to listening in this fashion, going back to stereo is truly disappointing. This is related to the cinema problem: with multichannel audio a small room can be made to sound as large as you like, but it is impossible to make a large room sound small.

But, all upmixing is a crude way to get something closer to real multichannel audio.

Last edited by Floyd Toole; 08-25-2017 at 09:33 AM.
Floyd Toole is online now  
post #1106 of 1751 Old 08-25-2017, 10:11 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 72 Post(s)
Liked: 54
>> the "air" that audiophiles talk about and LEV (listener envelopment).

I've found that the first thing achieving this is broadening the treble horizontal radiation pattern. Which is why the decadeslong adherence to conventional beaming as a function of frequency, however uniformly implemented, has always seemed so strange and limiting.

(Lazy, actually: it turns normal beamy driver behavior into some sort of virtue, as if it's a good idea, even a goal, for there to be notably less treble distributed into the reverberant field than midrange.)

If you cannot achieve extremely wide dispersion with individual-driver design or loading, which does take clever imagination and engineering, you can easily do it with extra tweeters, whose blending, given enough savvy, can be accomplished seamlessly and without audible lobing.

The difference is always striking and in my experience almost always preferred. 'Veils lifted', 'invisible cabinets' and all that.

Of course in no room do you get lateral delays of length, so greater treble distribution is not the complete answer. But I believe it is necessary, step 1, and still insufficiently explored in stereo.

Last edited by davidrmoran; 08-25-2017 at 10:13 AM. Reason: elaboration
davidrmoran is offline  
post #1107 of 1751 Old 08-25-2017, 10:17 AM
Advanced Member
 
Tomas2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 734
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 455 Post(s)
Liked: 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rex Anderson View Post
Those are good sounding recordings, but IMO, none of them have the deep, extended, well balanced bass content that "Morph the Cat" has.
The point I was making is that once the studio monitors reach a relatively high level of transparency, the mix will effectively "translate". Here is another short list of mix engineers that would take serious issue with the so called circle of confusion label:

Elliot Scheiner
Roger Nichols
Bob Ludwig
Bruce Swedien
Tchad Blake
Derek Bason

Derek was the mix engineer for LeAnn Rimes 'Family' (2007) another benchmark / masterpiece in quality. A short list of professional level engineering that goes back to the early seventies along with the contemporary hardware available. The complexity of the stereo soundfield these engineers produced are simply sublime.

SAMSUNG QLED | ROTEL | MOREL | M&K | HAFLER | TECHNICS SP-25
Tomas2 is offline  
post #1108 of 1751 Old 08-25-2017, 10:39 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,351
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 871 Post(s)
Liked: 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomas2 View Post
The point I was making is that once the studio monitors reach a relatively high level of transparency, the mix will effectively "translate". Here is another short list of mix engineers that would take serious issue with the so called circle of confusion label:

Elliot Scheiner
Roger Nichols
Bob Ludwig
Bruce Swedien
Tchad Blake
Derek Bason

Derek was the mix engineer for LeAnn Rimes 'Family' (2007) another benchmark / masterpiece in quality. A short list of professional level engineering that goes back to the early seventies along with the contemporary hardware available. The complexity of the stereo soundfield these engineers produced are simply sublime.
When I was still working as a recording, mixing and mastering engineer, I used to try to keep up with who was winning Grammy awards in the "best engineered" category. There is a lot of well recorded, mixed and mastered material out there and the technology to produce it has never been better. Skilled and talented engineers with access to well maintained vintage and modern studio equipment, great monitors, control rooms and studios designed by acousticians are capable of producing stunning audio quality. Sometimes I listen just because stuff sounds so good even if I don't necessarily like the music.

Maybe we should have a new thread on current best sounding material.

Last edited by Rex Anderson; 08-25-2017 at 11:38 AM.
Rex Anderson is online now  
post #1109 of 1751 Old 08-25-2017, 12:24 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,729
Mentioned: 91 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2001 Post(s)
Liked: 2497
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post
I sure wish SFM was available as a standalone product.

I imagine any SDP75 sales lost from people who bought it because of that would be more than compensated for by the volume of sales at a more affordable price point.

Dr. Toole, any idea if there are plans for that?
Good questions for me to ask at CEDIA.

As Dr. Toole says, it's not nearly as simple as running something like ARC or Audyssey - you really have to know what you're doing.

On the positive side, it's really encouraging to me that the SDP75 mic WILL be available for those who DO know what they are doing to perform their own calibrations. That said, while the SDP75 is a tweaker's dream, it's certainly not plug and play if you want to get the most out of it. When I did my setup, I was able to call on Curt Hoyt of Trinnov to help walk me through the various options over the phone. The best part about it was that he could log in to my SDP75 from off site and "drive" whenever he needed to, and I could watch his moves in real time. Curt was patient, thorough, and really helped me understand everything that was going on.

I'm going to write much more about the SDP75 here soon, probably in the Synthesis thread (I will post a link here). Let me just get this out of the way - for anyone considering getting one of these and attempting their own calibration, the $150 per hour Curt charges for off-site calibration help is absolutely worth it.
Madmax67 likes this.

John Schuermann
The Screening Room Home Theater Sales and Design
JS Music and Sound Film Scoring and Sound Design
John Schuermann is offline  
post #1110 of 1751 Old 08-25-2017, 12:40 PM
Member
 
Floyd Toole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: California
Posts: 733
Mentioned: 77 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 765 Post(s)
Liked: 2746
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidrmoran View Post
>> the "air" that audiophiles talk about and LEV (listener envelopment).

I've found that the first thing achieving this is broadening the treble horizontal radiation pattern. Which is why the decadeslong adherence to conventional beaming as a function of frequency, however uniformly implemented, has always seemed so strange and limiting.

(Lazy, actually: it turns normal beamy driver behavior into some sort of virtue, as if it's a good idea, even a goal, for there to be notably less treble distributed into the reverberant field than midrange.)

If you cannot achieve extremely wide dispersion with individual-driver design or loading, which does take clever imagination and engineering, you can easily do it with extra tweeters, whose blending, given enough savvy, can be accomplished seamlessly and without audible lobing.

The difference is always striking and in my experience almost always preferred. 'Veils lifted', 'invisible cabinets' and all that.

Of course in no room do you get lateral delays of length, so greater treble distribution is not the complete answer. But I believe it is necessary, step 1, and still insufficiently explored in stereo.
I don't know whether you were aware of it, but Lexicon has a new prototype loudspeaker that may warm your heart - or not.

http://lexicon.com/newsdetail/~/item...m-lexicon.html
Floyd Toole is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Speakers

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off