AVS Forum banner

1201 - 1220 of 5675 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
626 Posts
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).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,169 Posts
From Acoustics of Small Rooms by Kleiner and Tichy:

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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,636 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
626 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,636 Posts
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scotth3886

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,453 Posts
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-speakers/710918-revel-owners-thread-332.html#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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,789 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,990 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,499 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,636 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
626 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,306 Posts
Thank you for weighing in!

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.


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?


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.


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!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,282 Posts
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 :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,720 Posts
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.
 
1201 - 1220 of 5675 Posts
Top