Which speakers are the Classical Music Pros using?

[tuga]

Some of them might work only on Classical music. I simply don't have full oversight over what the different studios are mixing and most others here probably don't either. I have many pictures from many studios showing different speakers.

A poor implentation of a horn and a woofer doesn't really outrule it. However, there's no doubt that a horn can be designed much better in regards to directivity. A large and well designed horn system will generally work better with Classical than other speaker IMO due to low distortion, great dynamich without any audible compression combined with a uniform directivity. Spaciousness can be achieved with a late arrival lateral diffuse tail.

I wasn't criticising horns as a topology, only the TAD design.

But in my view horn speakers should be at least 4-way with at least 3 stacked and time-aligned horns for constant directivity down to the low bass, not the more typical 2-way horn and bass bin design.

 

[tuga]

1. The headphone is used to suppress the acoustic during the control of the recording. Try to control a recording made in a reverberant acoustic in a reverberant acoustic!

2. There are no speakers dedicated to classical music. To be extremist a speaker able to reproduce the bass of hip-hop or dub (tense, fast) and without painful colorings will reproduce any music.

A horn speakers or a non horn speaker is not the problem in a living room. The living room is the problem.

70 % of my listening is classical music. I use Neumann Kh420 and k+h O300. In a treated room (upon 100Hz)

If your room were not treated then horns would be a better option (in terms of their ability to recreate the recorded ambience cues without side-wall interference).

 

[GXAlan]

Skywalker Sound which does a lot of movies uses B&W with the grills on…

It‘s pretty clear that even though the B&W line typically measures poorly by many standards, its use in the mixing stage means that it probably sounds good for a lot of music. I bet early 80‘s music sounds great on JBL L100’s.

 

[Tom C]

View attachment 155690Skywalker Sound which does a lot of movies uses B&W with the grills on…

It‘s pretty clear that even though the B&W line typically measures poorly by many standards, its use in the mixing stage means that it probably sounds good for a lot of music. I bet early 80‘s music sounds great on JBL L100’s.

This. Because the circle of confusion is real. You can prefer to put your own stamp on the sound during reproduction, but if you listen on speakers that differ from those used during production, you are hearing the content out of context, and may conclude that what is actually sublime sounds ridiculous.

 

[mSpot]

Interesting to see Sennheiser HD series headphones in some of the photos on this thread, wonder if they are common in r or ding studios also.

Yes, the Sennheiser HD series was originally aimed at the pro audio market, before marketing expanded to consumers/audiophiles.

 

[Duke]

I have never listened to a bipole, but wonder what is the advantage (or more likely disadvantage) in terms of boundary interaction when compared to a dipole, at least judging from this diagram?

The summed off-axis energy of a bipole is more spectrally-correct than that of a monopole, because of the additional mids and highs that are going into the reverberant field. As depicted in your diagram the bipole's summed off-axis energy is less spectrally-correct than that of the dipole or omni, this because the bipole's radiation patterns (front and back) generally narrow with increasing frequency.

Some of the corresponding tradeoffs of the bipole include a reduced direct-to-reverberant sound ratio (which may not be a disadvantage in all situations), and a recommendation that the speakers be positioned far enough out from the "front" wall to avoid the backwave energy arriving too soon. Ime this recommendation applies to dipoles and omnis as well.

(Despite the radiation pattern advantages of dipoles and cardioids I choose not to use them because, in my experience, these types convey less "impact" in the bass and lower midrange regions than monopoles and bipoles do.)

Here is an article I wrote for an online magazine which mentions some of the particulars of the bipolar configuration I used:

The Controlled-Pattern Offset Bipole

And here's what they looked like (same drivers on the back, but close to the floor):

What I find interesting about the Fenicia is the fact that the rear-firing array is a speaker that can be orientated, EQ'ed and it's level attenuated, a topology which unlike others gives the user significant control over the effects of "envelopment" and "spaciousness" rather than 'dictating' one particular form of presentation.

I absolutely agree that Sonus Faber's approach with the Fenice is an improvement over a straightforward bipolar loudspeaker. My current designs (such as the Azel you mentioned above) have a rear-firing driver which is adjustable in level and spectral balance, though admittedly mine lacks the aim-ability of the rear-firing array on the Fenice.

At this point we are veering far from an accurate reproduction or transduction of the signal in the sense that there's a significant level of 'distortion' which results from the room interaction.

Imo this goes straight to the heart of the matter.

If the spectrally-correct rear-firing energy of a bipole or dipole or Fenice/Azel-style multidirectional speaker is "distortion", then isn't the spectrally-incorrect off-axis energy of a monopole loudspeaker even more of a "distortion"? Yet most people do not prefer quasi-anechoic listening environments for conventional monopole loudspeakers. So if our concept of "accurate" is informed by controlled blind studies of preference, reflections are not necessarily distortions.

Taking the Fenice as an example, presumably its additional rear-firing energy is actually improving the spectral balance of the reverberant field. Seen through this lens, it is arguably reducing distortion.

So I take the position that the intelligent deliberate addition of off-axis energy can improve accuracy, to the extent that the spectral balance of the reflections matters to the ears.

Now obviously the deliberate addition of off-axis energy will decrease the direct-to-reverberant ratio, which can be counter-productive, especially if the additional reflections arrive too soon. So imo there are still tradeoffs to be juggled.

Which raises an interesting question:

Is reproducing what the engineers were listening to a reasonable, universal goal?

I can only say that it might be for some people...

The goal of "hearing what the engineers heard" certainly makes intuitive sense, but (at the risk of oversimplifying) the engineers were listening for what needs to be fixed, so they used tools optimized for that purpose, not the least of which is room acoustics which cost them many tens of thousands of dollars to achieve. Imo this not the same goal as "creating the most credible illusion".

... but others may find that particular presentation wanting, and may prefer an "enhanced" version, through the use of dipoles, omnis or even (gasp) upmixing. This results from the fact that stereo is but an effect in itself and that audio reproduction falls short of the realism one experiences with live music.

Yes!!!

Imo there is arguably an inconsistency between "minimizing the circle of confusion" and "tasteful upmixing to embellish the sense of space."

I agree with you, it's wonderful that there are all those different topologies which allow the end user to try out and choose whichever one he or she prefers.
"Standardisation" is in my opinion a huge mistake, as is trying to influence people's preferences through research.

The Fenice/Azel approach offers an unusual degree of adaptability, as the reverberant sound can be optimized (for listener preference or room acoustic situations) without simultaneously changing the direct sound.

I have a feeling you are re-inventing the wheel. You are following the footsteps of Professor Bose who designed the 801 (wooden enclosure, not the plastic pro model) back in the 80s followed by more models with drivers facing all over the place. He gave up at the end.

At first glance, it would appear so.

But looking a bit deeper, here are three things that imo Dr. Bose did not get right:

1. The reason a low direct-to-reverberant sound ratio works well in a concert hall is because the reflection path lengths are very long, allowing the ear adequate time to clearly hear the direct sound stream separately from the reflected sound stream. In general the less time interval between the direct sound and the strong onset of reflections, the lower the level of the reflections needs to be in order to preserve clarity. In all fairness this may not have been known at the time Dr. Bose designed the 901, but the net result is that the direct-to-reverberant sound ratio of the Bose 901 is MUCH TOO LOW for home audio. Too much reverberant energy ends up arriving too early, and clarity is degraded.

2. The spectral balance of the those reflections is significantly different from the spectral balance of the direct sound. The rear-firing energy is generated by a slightly splayed array of 8 fullrange drivers, and the inevitable comb filtering decreases the relative amount of short-wavelength (high frequency) energy in the reflections, not to mention that the spectral balance of the rear-firing drivers started out as their power response rather than their on-axis response to begin with.

3. Dr. Bose's stated goal was 11% direct sound and 89% reflected sound, so he used one driver forward-facing and eight rear-facing. BUT his forward facing driver's output all by itself would have been maybe 1/4 direct sound and 3/4 reflected sound at normal listening distances. So what he ended up with was more like 3% direct sound and 97% reflected sound.

Hopefully I have not re-invented that wheel.

 

[HammerSandwich]

This. Because the circle of confusion is real. You can prefer to put your own stamp on the sound during reproduction, but if you listen on speakers that differ from those used during production, you are hearing the content out of context, and may conclude that what is actually sublime sounds ridiculous.

Even with the same speakers, the rooms' acoustics are unlikely to be the same, and the studios are far more likely to EQ the speakers than purist audiophiles.

 

[JJB70]

Classical music has been spared the worst excesses of the dreadful mastering trends seen in pop music, something for which I am eternally grateful. Production values in classical are a bit of a non-issue as it is rare to get a release for which poor recording and mastering really affects my enjoyment of the performance. Which is what matters really.

 

[sarumbear]

But looking a bit deeper, here are three things that imo Dr. Bose did not get right:

1. The reason a low direct-to-reverberant sound ratio works well in a concert hall is because the reflection path lengths are very long, allowing the ear adequate time to clearly hear the direct sound stream separately from the reflected sound stream. In general the less time interval between the direct sound and the strong onset of reflections, the lower the level of the reflections needs to be in order to preserve clarity. In all fairness this may not have been known at the time Dr. Bose designed the 901, but the net result is that the direct-to-reverberant sound ratio of the Bose 901 is MUCH TOO LOW for home audio. Too much reverberant energy ends up arriving too early, and clarity is degraded.

2. The spectral balance of the those reflections is significantly different from the spectral balance of the direct sound. The rear-firing energy is generated by a slightly splayed array of 8 fullrange drivers, and the inevitable comb filtering decreases the relative amount of short-wavelength (high frequency) energy in the reflections, not to mention that the spectral balance of the rear-firing drivers started out as their power response rather than their on-axis response to begin with.

3. Dr. Bose's stated goal was 11% direct sound and 89% reflected sound, so he used one driver forward-facing and eight rear-facing. BUT his forward facing driver's output all by itself would have been maybe 1/4 direct sound and 3/4 reflected sound at normal listening distances. So what he ended up with was more like 3% direct sound and 97% reflected sound.

Hopefully I have not re-invented that wheel.

1&2- The reflections in auditoriums were pretty much understood by 1950s. The war had progressed our understanding of acoustics. It was part of my curriculum for my Acoustics Master in 1970. I'm sure as a MIT Professor, Professor Bose would have known that too. Acousticians knew the reflections in domestic rooms are less than in auditoriums but we didn't have the theory to explain/calculate it until Dr. Tool published his paper The Detection of Reflections in Typical Rooms. If you have not done so already I urge you to read it.

3- Dr. Bose had designed other speakers based on sound reflecting from the walls. 601 for instance have a completely different ratio to the 401 . He iterated 601 three times until he gave up on the reflected sound concept. By then his company was the most successful speaker manufacturer in the world with a R&D budget in orders of magnitude larger than any competitor. If Professor Bose had seen any merit on the reflected sound concept I am sure he would have continued to iterate.

In 1985 Jeffy Borish of the Center for Computer Research in Music and Acoustics, Stanford, CA published a paper about Electronic Simulation of Auditorium Acoustics where he developed a sound reproduction system to re-create any auditorium using real measured data of that auditorium. Sadly, it was demonstrated ad infinitum that it doesn't work. That was the end of it.

You seem to be doing something similar, but simpler being passive. I am afraid that your design may fail as well. But science can only improve with people like you trying their ideas. I wish you all the best.

 

[tuga]

1&2- The reflections in auditoriums were pretty much understood by 1950s. The war had progressed our understanding of acoustics. It was part of my curriculum for my Acoustics Master in 1970. I'm sure as a MIT Professor, Professor Bose would have known that too. Acousticians knew the reflections in domestic rooms are less than in auditoriums but we didn't have the theory to explain/calculate it until Dr. Tool published his paper The Detection of Reflections in Typical Rooms. If you have not done so already I urge you to read it.

3- Dr. Bose had designed other speakers based on sound reflecting from the walls. 601 for instance have a completely different ratio to the 401 . He iterated 601 three times until he gave up on the reflected sound concept. By then his company was the most successful speaker manufacturer in the world with a R&D budget in orders of magnitude larger than any competitor. If Professor Bose had seen any merit on the reflected sound concept I am sure he would have continued to iterate.

In 1985 Jeffy Borish of the Center for Computer Research in Music and Acoustics, Stanford, CA published a paper about Electronic Simulation of Auditorium Acoustics where he developed a sound reproduction system to re-create any auditorium using real measured data of that auditorium. Sadly, it was demonstrated ad infinitum that it doesn't work. That was the end of it.

You seem to be doing something similar, but simpler being passive. I am afraid that your design may fail as well. But science can only improve with people like you trying their ideas. I wish you all the best.

It looks as though you are assuming that there is a universally better transduction topology or directivity pattern, a one-size-fits-all solution to stereo stranducers.
And yet some people are using omins, others dipoles, others wide- and narrow-directivity monopoles. Possibily because that's the "presentation" which they prefer.

 

[sarumbear]

It looks as though you are assuming that there is a universally better transduction topology or directivity pattern, a one-size-fits-all solution to stereo stranducers.
And yet some people are using omins, others dipoles, others wide- and narrow-directivity monopoles. Possibily because that's the "presentation" which they prefer.

I am not assuming anything. I am simply mentioning the designs done or been suggested to cater for reflected sound in a domestic environment 40+ years ago. So far all are abandoned. That is why I saluted you for revisiting old concept.

 

[Duke]

In 1985 Jeffy Borish of the Center for Computer Research in Music and Acoustics, Stanford, CA published a paper about Electronic Simulation of Auditorium Acoustics where he developed a sound reproduction system to re-create any auditorium using real measured data of that auditorium. Sadly, it was demonstrated ad infinitum that it doesn't work. That was the end of it.

Thank you for the link, I read a couple of sections. My initial skeptical reaction is that once the ambience signal has been derived and added to the mix, in a home audio setting we'd now have three competing sets of ambience cues: Those already on the recording; the auditorium-specific cues synthesized by the processor; and those inherent to the playback room.

What can you tell me about the ad infinitum failures? The reasons for those failures may be educational.

You seem to be doing something similar, but simpler being passive. I am afraid that your design may fail as well. But science can only improve with people like you trying their ideas. I wish you all the best.

Well perhaps my contribution will be to expand our catalog of failed techniques, and the objectivist in me recognizes that the odds of someone like me making a worthwhile improvement to what is already being done and done well is very low. But the subjectivist in me sincerely appreciates you wishing me "all the best"!

Seen through a Toolian rather than a Boseian lens, what I'm doing looks like this: Take a speaker with a nice, wide, uniform radiation pattern, and chop that pattern in half, so now you have two narrow ones. Aim one half at the listening position (such that it avoids the early same-side-wall reflection), and aim the other half away from the listening position, such that it bounces off at least two room boundaries before reaching the listening area. So the net result is a nice first-arrival sound, followed by a pattern of reflections which is deliberately inconsistent with what would normally occur given the playback room's actual dimensions, and more consistent with the reflection pattern of a significantly larger room.

 

[sarumbear]

What can you tell me about the ad infinitum failures? The reasons for those failures may be educational.

So the net result is a nice first-arrival sound, followed by a pattern of reflections which is deliberately inconsistent with what would normally occur given the playback room's actual dimensions, and more consistent with the reflection pattern of a significantly larger room.

I do not have any links documenting the failures I'm afraid. They are all anecdotal or first person tales from the days I was an AES convention frequent traveller.

I cannot see anything different to adding delayed reverb to the sound. How can that be High-Fidelity?

 

[tuga]

I cannot see anything different to adding delayed reverb to the sound. How can that be High-Fidelity?

How can anything other than listening in an anechoic chamber be high fidelity? (headphones perhaps)

 

[Burning Sounds]

There is an interesting article on the Linkwitz Lab website regarding the recording of the audio and video for the San Francisco Symphony at 100 releases. Also interesting to see Linkwitz Orion's in the post-production room at the time of this article.

For the last 3 years Jack Vad has used LX521s in his SFS post production work for their soundstage, tonality and neutrality according to the blurb on the German Linkwitz website.

 

[audio2design]

I was just going to say with all the subpar recordings out there, probably not very good ones. Looks like I'm not too far off.

Bingo .... lets see if we can maximize our near field reflective surface to make our mixing studio as unlike our customer's as possible.

 

[sarumbear]

There is an interesting article on the Linkwitz Lab website regarding the recording of the audio and video for the San Francisco Symphony at 100 releases. Also interesting to see Linkwitz Orion's in the post-production room at the time of this article.

That post-production room is possibly the worst room I have seen in a recording facility. Shameful really.

 

[Duke]

I cannot see anything different to adding delayed reverb to the sound. How can that be High-Fidelity?

This is great - you're making me think about definitions of terms in ways that I had not previously.

Apparently one generally accepted definition of High Fidelity is "recreating exactly what the engineers heard" (assuming the engineers used excellent speakers in an excellent studio). Is that approximately the definition you have in mind?

Let me propose an alternative definition: High Fidelity is "creating a credible illusion, both timbrally and spatially, of hearing a live performance." In other words, Fidelity to the experience one would have at the performance (even if it never actually occurred), rather than Fidelity to the experience of the engineer.

So let me ask you a loaded question, which relates to competing definitions of "High Fidelity": How do you feel about using upmixing to surround channels to add delayed reverb to the sound? This being a considerably more extreme approach than my passive multi-directional loudspeaker topology.

Here's why that's a loaded question: On page 193 of "Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms", Floyd Toole says that in his home listening room he employs "tasteful upmixing for many recordings to embellish the sense of space." So perhaps Toole's approach of adding delayed reverb to the sound fails this or that definition of High Fidelity, but it succeeds at creating a credible illusion, both timbrally and spatially.

Just to be clear, my approach does not add any more in-room reflected energy than you would normally get from a good pair of conventional speakers. [Imo] My approach improves on a good pair of conventional speakers in two areas: First, the reflections are more spectrally correct. Second, the reflections are delivered to the listener in a way which facilitates hearing the acoustic space on the recording venue, whether said acoustic space be real or engineered or both. [/imo]

The above alternative definition of High Fidelity is open-ended and therefore somewhat messy; in the real world there will probably always be room for improvement. On the other hand, recreating "what the engineers heard" has a definite endpoint.

 

[Burning Sounds]

That post-production room is possibly the worst room I have seen in a recording facility. Shameful really.

I agree - it's not the way I would want to listen to Orion's. I have no idea how Jack Vad has the LX521s set up - hopefully better than the Orion's in that room.

 

[MarkS]

Skywalker Sound which does a lot of movies uses B&W with the grills on…

Maybe people who measure speakers should consider measuring them with grills on ...