How to Choose a Loudspeaker -- What the Science Shows - Page 41 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 5004Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1201 of 3766 Old 02-02-2019, 06:14 AM
Advanced Member
 
TimVG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 532
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Liked: 391
I promise I'm not doing this to get on your back, Scott .. BUT :-) .. Incidentally speakers with large panels are some of the worst offenders when it comes to resonances and beaming of sound (no two listeners will hear the same sound).
TimVG is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1202 of 3766 Old 02-02-2019, 06:16 AM
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 TimVG View Post
I promise I'm not doing this to get on your back, Scott .. BUT :-) .. Incidentally speakers with large panels are some of the worst offenders when it comes to resonances and beaming of sound (no two listeners will hear the same sound).

Good, then don't buy them.
MUDCAT45 likes this.
Scotth3886 is online now  
post #1203 of 3766 Old 02-02-2019, 06:23 AM
Advanced Member
 
TimVG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 532
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Liked: 391
I would go as far as put out a word of caution to those purchasing such loudspeakers.

Q&A likes this.
TimVG is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1204 of 3766 Old 02-02-2019, 06:25 AM
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
Good, then don't buy them.
Scotth3886 is online now  
post #1205 of 3766 Old 02-02-2019, 06:45 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
12B4A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: CR Iowa
Posts: 1,046
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 596 Post(s)
Liked: 514
From Acoustics of Small Rooms by Kleiner and Tichy:

Quote:
8.7.3 auditory source width and image precision
As we listen to sounds, the apparent width of the auditory event, often called the auditory source width (ASW), will depend on many issues. To those listening to stereo or multichannel recordings of sound, it is quite clear that the width of the array of phantom sources treated by the recording or playback is determined by not only the layout of the loudspeaker setup in the listening room and the directional properties of the loudspeakers but also on the listening room itself. The more reflections arriving from the sides of the listening room, the wider will the ASW be. However, the ASW will be frequency dependent above 0.5 kHz and a 2 kHz sound arriving at ±45° relative the frontal direction will produce maximum ASW [38,39]. This is to be expected since the masking by direct sound is the smallest for this angle of incidence of early arriving reflections [16]. The ASW also depends on the low-frequency content of the signal, more low-frequency energy increases ASW [38,40,41]. Psychoacoustic testing shows that the spatial aspects of the early reflections are primarily determined by the reflection spectrum above 2 kHz [33].
One can find the book in pdf form for free with a google search. I won't directly link it. This along with Floyd's book are valuable research sources if one wants get a better idea of the scope of research that already has been performed to inform the science.
Q&A, Vergiliusm, Muza and 3 others like this.

Life is Lambertian
12B4A is online now  
post #1206 of 3766 Old 02-02-2019, 08:11 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Tom Roper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 4,526
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 455 Post(s)
Liked: 425
Science is valid for what it speaks to, but about everything else it doesn't speak to says nothing.

Does a laser beam cast a shadow? It does if the illuminated object is very small or the beam is very far away. Terms like big, small and scale are relative terms awaiting a dimension to make them quantifiable but that doesn't mean they cannot be used objectively. It's not necessary have a tape measure to objectively say a freight locomotive is "bigger" than a child's scooter. People know the intended meaning of the comparison yet for the sake of argument confuse scholarly with pedantic.

Scale is not subjectivist, it's relativist.
noway1 and Scotth3886 like this.

HDR Colorist and Conversions
INTO THE CAVE OF WONDERS
Directed by MANUEL BENITO DE VALLE Produced by PEDRO PABLO FIGUEROA
Cast MANUEL ANGEL REINA, CLAUDIA GARROTE
LOVETHEFRAME STORIES, SOUNDTRACKS AND FILMS
Tom Roper is offline  
post #1207 of 3766 Old 02-02-2019, 08:28 AM
Advanced Member
 
TimVG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 532
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Liked: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Roper View Post
Science is valid for what it speaks to, but about everything else it doesn't speak to says nothing.



Does a laser beam cast a shadow? It does if the illuminated object is very small or the beam is very far away. Terms like big, small and scale are relative terms awaiting a dimension to make them quantifiable but that doesn't mean they cannot be used objectively. It's not necessary have a tape measure to objectively say a freight locomotive is "bigger" than a child's scooter. People know the intended meaning of the comparison yet for the sake of argument confuse scholarly with pedantic.



Scale is not subjectivist, it's relativist.
As per Floyd Toole above:

"-Scale- is a subjectivist term with no definition."

There is no great unknown in this regard. The differences in ASW can be attributed to a combination of different factors. Several sources have been cited by myself and others.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-A510F met Tapatalk
TimVG is online now  
post #1208 of 3766 Old 02-02-2019, 08:51 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Tom Roper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 4,526
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 455 Post(s)
Liked: 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimVG View Post
As per Floyd Toole above:

"-Scale- is a subjectivist term with no definition."
Scale has vast definitions. Quibbling about one person's narrow usage of the term is pettifoggery.
Scotth3886 likes this.

HDR Colorist and Conversions
INTO THE CAVE OF WONDERS
Directed by MANUEL BENITO DE VALLE Produced by PEDRO PABLO FIGUEROA
Cast MANUEL ANGEL REINA, CLAUDIA GARROTE
LOVETHEFRAME STORIES, SOUNDTRACKS AND FILMS

Last edited by Tom Roper; 02-02-2019 at 08:55 AM.
Tom Roper is offline  
post #1209 of 3766 Old 02-02-2019, 08:59 AM
Advanced Member
 
TimVG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 532
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Liked: 391
If that one person happens to be the authority in the field of sound reproduction and the science behind it, I'll take his word over yours.
Lonewolf7002 likes this.
TimVG is online now  
post #1210 of 3766 Old 02-02-2019, 09:00 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,347
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 867 Post(s)
Liked: 1036
Quote:
Originally Posted by driedmango View Post
Hi Floyd, I am debating between a C208 and a C205 for center setup. Your previous post with the C205 spin seems to have expired from whatever photo hosting site you used. Do you still have the C205 by any chance? If you still have it I would appreciate it. Also, is there any thoughts on a F226BE? The F228/F208 cabinet is too wide
Sorry for the delay, lost track of your post.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-sp...l#post54648414

FYI, here's an older quote from Mark Glazer about the C25 vs. the C208 (not sure how helpful this will be, as the C205 is not mentioned):

C208’s benefit is it covers a wider group of listeners (i.e. the ones seated off axis) due to the vertical midrange-tweeter. C25 is more compact and more idealized for listeners seated near center.
driedmango likes this.

Last edited by Rex Anderson; 02-02-2019 at 11:31 AM.
Rex Anderson is online now  
post #1211 of 3766 Old 02-02-2019, 09:32 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 1,254
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 843 Post(s)
Liked: 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimVG View Post
Since this is a thread about science, can I not argue in favor of it? My comments are perfectly on topic with straightforward objective information (I try to at least, English is not my native language). The question is, why are a handful of subjectivists constantly debating information based on scientific research based on their personal experiences, which have no validity from an objective POV?
That is unfair. I don't see subjectivists debating the topic but people asking questions and seeking information to better understand a phenomenal that they and others seem to observe. Inquisitiveness is the beginning of all scientific explorations. If it was not for his question, we would have never heard Dr. Toole's comments on the topic.

Also, it is not possible for Dr. Toole to respond to all questions. So it is good for others with knowledge in this area (I am talking about Sean, Kevin, Rex and others) to contribute as well.

If there is no scientific explanation for the phenomenon, we can leave it at that. But let's not demonize people who ask a genuine question.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
SouthernCA is online now  
post #1212 of 3766 Old 02-02-2019, 10:17 AM
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 SouthernCA View Post
That is unfair. I don't see subjectivists debating the topic but people asking questions and seeking information to better understand a phenomenal that they and others seem to observe. Inquisitiveness is the beginning of all scientific explorations. If it was not for his question, we would have never heard Dr. Toole's comments on the topic.

Also, it is not possible for Dr. Toole to respond to all questions. So it is good for others with knowledge in this area (I am talking about Sean, Kevin, Rex and others) to contribute as well.

If there is no scientific explanation for the phenomenon, we can leave it at that. But let's not demonize people who ask a genuine question.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Damn, I seldom have to put someone on ignore, but ENOUGH !!!!

Anyway, here's a good real life example of what I was talking about and context of the word 'scale'.

I was away from the hobby for a while when I come back here to Central Ohio to take of both parents with Alzheimer's. I couldn't do much else for four years and then a year for my brother and sister and I to get the house cleaned out and sold. So it was pretty close to six years with no audio. So I listened around for a few weeks and then was close to decision. Went over to a local Magneplanar dealer who had a new pair of Maggie 3.7i in stock in cherry so I was planning on taking them home. I was aware of how highly regarded and reviewed they were in the audiophile press, plus I definitely know how to set dipoles up to get the best out of them. I demoed and demoed and played with placement a bunch, but for example, on Jennifer Warnes, Hunter, I could not get her voice to 'SCALE' as it should no matter what we did … tweeter on the inside, tweeter on the outside. Nothing worked and her voice was still three to four faces wide. So the 3.7i would do a wide stage, but it would also bloat everything within that stage toward the center. Further out toward the sides of the stage it'd compress images horizontally. They would scale vertically, but not horizontally consistently from center to edge. I didn't think I had read any complaints about the speakers' inability to 'SCALE', but it was what I heard so I passed. I'm the one who would have to live with it.

I thought about Quads, but since I had just taken five years off work to take of mom and dad until they passed, and that was right after the RE crash of 2008 and 2009. So I had NO business spending in excess of $10k for speakers so I also passed on the Quads. Only left me one choice. So here I am, a budget buyer and ended up with what I bought. The only part of the system I really spent some money on was the analog front end: TT, cart and phono stage, but I viewed the rest of the system as temporary. Anyway in re the speakers, they worked wonderfully in that house, but as I've bitched on and on about, they were very difficult here. They're fine upstairs, but the neighbors can hear if their hearing aids are on, but that downstairs 'entertainment' room has been a real bear. They SCALE wonderfully, soundstage is quite lifelike and three dimensional, and to SCALE, but there's a midrange peak or forwardness at 1.5k that I do not like and haven't been able to totally get rid of.

Last edited by Scotth3886; 02-02-2019 at 10:23 AM.
Scotth3886 is online now  
post #1213 of 3766 Old 02-02-2019, 10:21 AM
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmittyJS View Post
I have JBL LSR30X as my computer/studio speakers. For the money, they're great. I have no complaints at all and have no plans to replace them when I set up a proper guitar studio. If I did, I'd jump all the way up to Mackie HR824 Mk2, but those are $1,500. Nothing in between except the KRK 10-3 impresses me.

Some studio guys are currently recommending Kali LP-6 for budget studios. They go for the same as the 305.

thanks...gonna research the kali, seen a couple people online like them alot.

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 online now  
post #1214 of 3766 Old 02-02-2019, 10:22 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Tom Roper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 4,526
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 455 Post(s)
Liked: 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimVG View Post
If that one person happens to be the authority in the field of sound reproduction and the science behind it, I'll take his word over yours.
Scale has vast definitions beyond the field of sound reproduction or any single authority, as well particle physics in which scale is inseparable.

The terms scale, big, small are used here in a relative sense, objectively and with meaning. There is no problem with those words. The observations about the scale of sound could be flawed, or not. That's the discussion we are having. There is no need to label people who use the words subjectivists. I could call you an elitist. Would it make any persuasive difference except to devolve the conversation?

The observations about the scale of sound are unresolved and merit continued discussion.

HDR Colorist and Conversions
INTO THE CAVE OF WONDERS
Directed by MANUEL BENITO DE VALLE Produced by PEDRO PABLO FIGUEROA
Cast MANUEL ANGEL REINA, CLAUDIA GARROTE
LOVETHEFRAME STORIES, SOUNDTRACKS AND FILMS
Tom Roper is offline  
post #1215 of 3766 Old 02-02-2019, 11:13 AM
Advanced Member
 
TimVG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 532
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Liked: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Roper View Post
Scale has vast definitions beyond the field of sound reproduction or any single authority, as well particle physics in which scale is inseparable.



The terms scale, big, small are used here in a relative sense, objectively and with meaning. There is no problem with those words. The observations about the scale of sound could be flawed, or not. That's the discussion we are having. There is no need to label people who use the words subjectivists. I could call you an elitist. Would it make any persuasive difference except to devolve the conversation?



The observations about the scale of sound are unresolved and merit continued discussion.
In my defence, I did explain the perception of 'scale' and/or 'imaging' in quantifiable metrics. I explained how it is the result of a combination of matters both attributable to the loudspeaker, the room and the relative positioning of both speaker and listener. I said 'scale' in itself is not something that could be engineered into a system simply because it is a subjective term with variable meanings as you yourself have stated

Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-A510F met Tapatalk
Tom Roper, Q&A and unretarded like this.
TimVG is online now  
post #1216 of 3766 Old 02-02-2019, 12:17 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 15,124
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2755 Post(s)
Liked: 2660
Thank you for weighing in!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post
Your comments are very much on target, and in line with things I might have said. "Scale" is a subjectivist term with no definition.
Yes, but then we often start with an observation that we want to explain. So we usually start with an experience/observation, and give it some name by which to refer to it, then investigate it (including finding out if it represents listener bias, or something more objective).

So in terms of what I wanted to describe:

A 30" diagonal TV viewed from the same distance as an IMAX screen is going to present the same image of a car far smaller in the FOV than the IMAX image. It seems a sense of "scale" would be an appropriate term.

Similarly I'm sure we can agree that if you have a close mic'd recording of a real piano and played it through iphone speakers, vs through the Revel Salon2 speakers, the piano will sound more "life-like" in terms of the impression of the size of that instrument, vs through the tiny iphone speakers.

As I don't think this is a particularly controversial claim, and a real phenomenon, I'm wondering what other term to give this other than appealing to the sense of "scale" one speaker would give to the instrument over the other. Is there another more scientifically accurate and useful word to describe this phenomenon than "scale" "impression of size" or whatever? I'll gladly use it if it works better. Is "perceived size" better? That still seems subjective as "scale." But then we are trying to understand a subjectively perceived phenomenon in any case.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post

Some studies many years ago associated bass with perceived "size". I think it is definitely a factor, but with provisos.

That's interesting, though I'm curious about details. Would it be that two speaker designs would be rated as producing the same apparent "size" of sound if they only produce the exact same range of frequencies? Or are there other build/design factors that can influence the results? I'm still thinking about the Devore speakers I referenced, which have an unusually wide "old school" big woofer in a wide baffle design, which garner unanimous impressions of sounding particularly "full/big" in the sound. I wonder if the choices in woofer size/baffle/box shape contribute to this in any way?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post
In terms of sound quality ratings, bass extension - the lowest useful frequency - is a correlate.
I'm aware of the studies you've mentioned relating bass extension to perceived sound quality, though I'm not speaking of sound quality per se but a more specific sense of being able to produce the sensation of large sound sources. I've certainly heard speakers that go very low in the bass, and that can sound large, but whose sound quality I did not find pleasing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post
But in all cases the room resonances are in the propagation path between the speaker(s) and listener. These can cause huge variations in perceived bass because some frequencies are emphasized and others attenuated. The specific frequencies and the amount of energy communicated are determined by room size and shape, loudspeaker location, listener location, and even the configuration of bass drivers in the enclosure and whether it is a closed box or reflex design. In "real life" it is almost impossible to do meaningful comparisons, although opinions are arrived at with great regularity.

An elevated bass level is a common attribute of larger loudspeakers, and that is good. However the resulting perceptions are very likely different depending on the frequencies of the dominant room modes involved in the transfer of energy. Resonant peaks in the 80-100 Hz range generate "punchy" bass, with those at lower frequencies add "body" and can generate tactile impressions. Identifying those modes would be a good place to look for evidence of "scale" and controlling them a good way to potentially manipulate it.

I will add that I have observed great perceptual benefits when room modes are attenuated by multiple sub strategies. It no longer sounds like listening in a small room when the modes are attenuated or eliminated. The bass simply fills the room, as it does in large performance venues. To me, that is a persuasive factor in achieving "scale". The equivalent phenomenon at higher frequencies is that speakers with no audible resonances can "disappear", not drawing attention to themselves. That is another contributor to "scale".

It seems to me (and I may just not be fully grokking what you wrote) that there are some possible hints in there, but I'm left with the impression that what I'm asking about hasn't been necessarily studied or quantified in of itself, to a degree of confidence.


So I don't think I'll pursue the question any more in this thread. Thanks!

Last edited by R Harkness; 02-02-2019 at 12:21 PM.
R Harkness is online now  
post #1217 of 3766 Old 02-02-2019, 12:40 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
chikoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,213
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 40
FWIW. YMMV.

I have a pair of Andrew Jones Pioneer FS52 speakers in my bedroom. Few days ago, I saw a youtube video on Bose vs SVS (blind test) and I somehow liked how the Bose 301 sounded as compared to the SVS. Keep in mind: This is on youtube so nothing is to be taken for granted.

Anyhow, after that I took my FS52 speakers and turned them to face the wall with about 14” between them and the wall.

And I was surprised that I loved how it sounded in the room. They were still directional, great imaging, and yet spacious sounding due to the reflective sound.

I hope you enjoyed my little experiment with truth
chikoo is offline  
post #1218 of 3766 Old 02-02-2019, 01:05 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
laserjock II's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Texas Coast
Posts: 2,436
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1182 Post(s)
Liked: 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Roper View Post
Science is valid for what it speaks to, but about everything else it doesn't speak to says nothing.

Does a laser beam cast a shadow? It does if the illuminated object is very small or the beam is very far away. Terms like big, small and scale are relative terms awaiting a dimension to make them quantifiable but that doesn't mean they cannot be used objectively. It's not necessary have a tape measure to objectively say a freight locomotive is "bigger" than a child's scooter. People know the intended meaning of the comparison yet for the sake of argument confuse scholarly with pedantic.

Scale is not subjectivist, it's relativist.
A laser beam will not cast a shadow by itself. It’s interaction with something might, but not the beam itself.
unretarded likes this.
laserjock II is offline  
post #1219 of 3766 Old 02-02-2019, 02:57 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Soulburner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 4,105
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 1256
Back on topic, wouldn't these measurements be useful?

Click image for larger version

Name:	C34E-horizontal-dispersion-measurement-.jpg
Views:	52
Size:	65.2 KB
ID:	2519722
Horizontal Polar Measurement

Click image for larger version

Name:	C34E-vertical-polar-measurement.jpg
Views:	48
Size:	54.1 KB
ID:	2519720
Vertical Polar Measurement

HT: Samsung PN64H5000 (recommended settings) | NAD T758 V3 | Buchardt S400 (2) | Emotiva E2 (2) | Rythmik Audio F12 (2)
Soulburner is offline  
post #1220 of 3766 Old 02-02-2019, 03:51 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
aarons915's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 1,003
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 626 Post(s)
Liked: 560
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulburner View Post
Back on topic, wouldn't these measurements be useful?

Attachment 2519722
Horizontal Polar Measurement

Attachment 2519720
Vertical Polar Measurement
I think so, but aren't most plots in that format just simulations? I think actual measurements in that format would be a nice way to view the data.
aarons915 is offline  
post #1221 of 3766 Old 02-03-2019, 12:40 AM
Advanced Member
 
TimVG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 532
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Liked: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulburner View Post
Back on topic, wouldn't these measurements be useful?

Attachment 2519722
Horizontal Polar Measurement

Attachment 2519720
Vertical Polar Measurement
Too little info in those polars. Only particular frequencies are shown with heavy (1/3 octave) smoothing. That loudspeaker could have a dozen resonances and you wouldn’t know.
Anyhing is better than nothing however.
TimVG is online now  
post #1222 of 3766 Old 02-03-2019, 05:08 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gooddoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,658
Mentioned: 181 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3687 Post(s)
Liked: 3283
@Floyd Toole , I'm curious about the Spinorama family of curves? Was it designed specifically to see resonances or was it more iterative and discovered "accidentally" that resonances could be seen?

I personally love the process of discovery and the various ways it occurs from the light bulb "aha" moment where it just pops into the head to the discovery that happens when you're looking for something else entirely.

Thanks
Gooddoc is offline  
post #1223 of 3766 Old 02-03-2019, 06:30 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ggsantafe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Solar Powered in the Land of Enchantment
Posts: 1,139
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 330 Post(s)
Liked: 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddoc View Post
@Floyd Toole , I'm curious about the Spinorama family of curves? Was it designed specifically to see resonances or was it more iterative and discovered "accidentally" that resonances could be seen?

I personally love the process of discovery and the various ways it occurs from the light bulb "aha" moment where it just pops into the head to the discovery that happens when you're looking for something else entirely.

Thanks
Yeah - I remember reading a story about a scientist working in his lab who dropped a beaker filled with a liquid and noticed that the beaker didn't shatter - the observation led to the discovery of safety glass.

ggsantafe is online now  
post #1224 of 3766 Old 02-03-2019, 06:33 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Soulburner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 4,105
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 1256
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimVG View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulburner View Post
Back on topic, wouldn't these measurements be useful?

Attachment 2519722
Horizontal Polar Measurement

Attachment 2519720
Vertical Polar Measurement
Too little info in those polars. Only particular frequencies are shown with heavy (1/3 octave) smoothing. That loudspeaker could have a dozen resonances and you wouldn’t know.
Anyhing is better than nothing however. [IMG class=inlineimg]/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif[/IMG]
In addition to the spinorama, they tell us more about dispersion.

HT: Samsung PN64H5000 (recommended settings) | NAD T758 V3 | Buchardt S400 (2) | Emotiva E2 (2) | Rythmik Audio F12 (2)
Soulburner is offline  
post #1225 of 3766 Old 02-03-2019, 06:37 AM
Senior Member
 
steven59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 353
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 229 Post(s)
Liked: 114
I spend most of the winter enjoying stereo at home and at the shops and to scale I think poorly designed speakers will distort scale, like roger waters 'amused to death' album idk what they do with phase to make the sound come from all over the room, but it's surely special effects and I've had different speakers reproduce that recording differently while everything else being equal the speakers replay most other music more alike than different. Axpona was an excellent example of 4 floors of speakers jammed into the same size room all sounding more alike than different in terms of scale. I would expect direct radiating speakers to scale alike if placed the same in the same room as much as I would expect omni's and panels to sound different because like the amused to death recording they are designed to do what they're doing. I like typical box speakers and the last dozen or so pair that have passed thru my listening room scaled more alike than different.

Meridian dsp8000,Usher BE-20 DMD dancer, Vienna acoustics Beethoven's and (Strauss for sale), Hegel H360, Roon Nucleus, Rega jupiter cd, Revox s26 tuner,[path]salon2, salon1, f52, r105/3, ads L9e and the infamous bose 901 vI.
steven59 is offline  
post #1226 of 3766 Old 02-03-2019, 07:03 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
BGLeduc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 5,726
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2548 Post(s)
Liked: 2381
Quote:
Originally Posted by steven59 View Post
I spend most of the winter enjoying stereo at home and at the shops and to scale I think poorly designed speakers will distort scale, like roger waters 'amused to death' album idk what they do with phase to make the sound come from all over the room, but it's surely special effects and I've had different speakers reproduce that recording differently while everything else being equal the speakers replay most other music more alike than different. Axpona was an excellent example of 4 floors of speakers jammed into the same size room all sounding more alike than different in terms of scale. I would expect direct radiating speakers to scale alike if placed the same in the same room as much as I would expect omni's and panels to sound different because like the amused to death recording they are designed to do what they're doing. I like typical box speakers and the last dozen or so pair that have passed thru my listening room scaled more alike than different.
As for ATD, Google “Q Sound”.
steven59 likes this.

#JB17
BGLeduc is online now  
post #1227 of 3766 Old 02-03-2019, 07:53 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bear123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: PA
Posts: 6,158
Mentioned: 77 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2498 Post(s)
Liked: 3895
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimVG View Post
Scale cannot be designed into a loudspeaker. You can design a loudspeaker that has very good on- and off-axis performance. You can design a loudspeaker that extends deep and has excellent power handling. One cannot design 'scale' or 'imaging' into a loudspeaker system. It is the result of the recording and how the loudspeaker interacts with the adjacent boundaries (reflections). Scale cannot be quantified, there is no metric for it. A small system aided by one or preferably several subwoofers can 'image' the same as a large floorstander. It may not play as loud as the floorstander, but if the sub is well integrated with a smooth response through the crossover, I see no reason why the floorstander would 'image' larger or different if all the other factors remain the same.

I keep being told I'm wrong here in that regard, without any actual objective evidence to the contrary. Perhaps @avkv or @Floyd Toole could enlighten me. Am I wrong in what I've been typing here for the last few pages?
The big issue here is this. The objectivists are saying that if you remove the underlying reasons for many of the subjective impressions we get, many of which are caused by sighted bias, failure to level match, differences in frequency response, etc, and not ACTUAL differences, that you will get to the TRUTH of whether we can hear a difference or not. Now comes the problem. The subjectivists ignore all this, and say things like...huh-uh...I did a sighted(biased), non level matched, non frequency matched comparisons, and the speakers I thought would sound better sounded better. It's a pointless discussion when the subjectivists aren't willing or capable of understanding what is being said along with the conditions that are responsible for subjective, biased, inaccurate impressions.

Since it is a known fact that bias is not avoidable, that the ears/brain are easily fooled into hearing things that are or are not there, and that removing this bias is the only way to accurately determine what can ACTUALLY be heard, those of us with reasonable cognitive abilities can understand that removing bias is necessary in order to separate what we BELIEVE we hear(and therefore actually do hear), and what we actually hear based on an actual, measurable difference.

On the other side of the coin, closed minded subjectivists will just keep saying nuh-uh, I changed cables and heard a difference etc etc. Or I brought the amp home and LISTENED to it, and I heard a difference. Objectivists can agree that they did indeed hear a difference(bias, failure to level match, different response, etc), but the closed minded subjectivist group is not willing to concede WHY they heard a difference, even when in fact their may not have been one.

There is no way to have an intelligent discussion with someone who believes cables and cable lifts affect sound quality, so save your breath. Just saying.

Last edited by bear123; 02-03-2019 at 08:02 AM.
bear123 is offline  
post #1228 of 3766 Old 02-03-2019, 08:24 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
12B4A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: CR Iowa
Posts: 1,046
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 596 Post(s)
Liked: 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimVG View Post
Scale cannot be designed into a loudspeaker. You can design a loudspeaker that has very good on- and off-axis performance. You can design a loudspeaker that extends deep and has excellent power handling. One cannot design 'scale' or 'imaging' into a loudspeaker system. It is the result of the recording and how the loudspeaker interacts with the adjacent boundaries (reflections). Scale cannot be quantified, there is no metric for it. A small system aided by one or preferably several subwoofers can 'image' the same as a large floorstander. It may not play as loud as the floorstander, but if the sub is well integrated with a smooth response through the crossover, I see no reason why the floorstander would 'image' larger or different if all the other factors remain the same.

I keep being told I'm wrong here in that regard, without any actual objective evidence to the contrary. Perhaps @avkv or @Floyd Toole could enlighten me. Am I wrong in what I've been typing here for the last few pages?
Just to speculate: panel speakers (and other line source-ish technologies) have a less intense roll-off per distance than point-ish sourced cone/CD/dome speakers as well as having less lateral reflections. For a given seating distance, it might be possible that the listener experiences far more direct ASW HF energy in the recording itself vs. the reflected energy from the point source speakers off the side walls. This could create the subjective impression of having more of this "scale" term being used to describe the phenomena.

From my own experience with panels, I find the audio imaging size to be analogous to a substantially overscanned projected video image. It's a "wow this looks so big" impression but after awhile I notice some things seem out of proportion and missing in the frame.
CruelInventions likes this.

Life is Lambertian
12B4A is online now  
post #1229 of 3766 Old 02-03-2019, 08:29 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jjackkrash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,276
Mentioned: 40 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2223 Post(s)
Liked: 2328
Quote:
Originally Posted by bear123 View Post
Since it is a known fact that bias is not avoidable, that the ears/brain are easily fooled into hearing things that are or are not there
I'd just note that I have come around to an extent to not trying to fight my own biases too much when it comes to gear. These biases are powerful and real. When you stick the gear in your room, you can see see it and you know what you paid for it and you have all the other information you have that makes subjective tests invalid. That's not going to change just because you picked the gear out of a blind. The chances of liking the gear when you stick it in your room is slim if you are predisposed to hate it even if it is objectively better than some of the alternatives. So I don't stress too much when I choose gear that I want just because I want it.

All that said, my biases run more and more towards picking accurate gear that makes measurable differences. So at least I got that going for me.
jjackkrash is offline  
post #1230 of 3766 Old 02-03-2019, 08:39 AM
Advanced Member
 
TimVG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 532
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Liked: 391
@bear123 . Very much agreed.

@12B4A . Yes, that could very well the case.The perceived scale therefore is the result of quantifiable metrics as we can measure what sound leaves any loudspeaker. The big variable would then be the room and position of speakers/listener. Personally I prefer the sound of regular (point source) forward firing loudspeakers, as it's what most content is mixed on anyway - seems logical to me to use such systems for playback. Both panel loudspeakers and omni-firing loudspeakers have never really appealed to me, but to each his own of course. Although (as mentioned before) a word of caution as panel loudspeakers usually come with resonances. Perceived scale aside - those are far more detrimental to the sound than anything else.
TimVG is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Speakers

Tags
cea 2034 , double-blind , listening tests , loudspeaker measurements , spinorama

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