• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Can't we all just get along?

abdo123

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
7,425
Likes
7,941
Location
Brussels, Belgium
I would read his stuff very carefully. His work at AR and later at NHT was groundbreaking.
I'm reading about the magic speaker right now. Seems like it tries very hard to act like a dipole speaker in-room by minimizing early reflections with intense directivity control while producing 'late reflections' with the side firing time delayed drivers.

This is honestly pretty awesome! Thank you for sharing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SIY

Tangband

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
2,994
Likes
2,789
Location
Sweden
As a former DIY:er and reader of many theories ( including Tooles ) and have tried most of them - I dont see ASR or GR research as the only true sites to learn from .

As Goat76 wrote earlier , testing and only listening to only one speaker in a room doesnt show 100% how two loudspeakers in a room , in stereo will perform.

It might be interesting though, to see the freq. linearity of the speaker and also the distortion measurements .

Tonycollinet wrote ( rightly ) that the stereoimage appear in the brain of the listener, and in two channel listening there are reflections from the walls thats playing a big part on how we experience spatial qualities, the ” illusion” of the recorded event .

It takes a lot of experience to install two loudspeakers correctly in a room, because the stereo system is so flawed, you really need the influence of the reflections from the walls in the room, to have a positive impact on what you hear . This demands knowledge of ” the optimal delay” for such reflexes in 2 channel sound . 20-25 ms delay of the wall reflections can positively contribute to a good spatial experience - ruling out small rooms where this is impossible.

ASR or GR research dont mention this , probably because they have not enough experience , or they just dont care much for installement.

Or maybe they realise that the perfect installed two channel system in a specific room with its psycoacoustic impact, dont obey by any fixed rule , impossible to explain in writing … in the end, you have to trust your ears .
 
Last edited:

tomelex

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
990
Likes
572
Location
So called Midwest, USA
As a former DIY:er and reader of many theories ( including Tooles ) and have tried most of them - I dont see ASR or GR research as the only true sites to learn from .

As Goat76 wrote earlier , testing and only listening to only one speaker in a room doesnt show 100% how two loudspeakers in a room , in stereo will perform.
It might be interesting though, to see the linearity of the speaker and also the distortion measurements .

Tonycollinet wrote ( rightly ) that the stereoimage appear in the brain of the listener, and in two channel listening there are reflektions from the walls thats playing a big part on how we experience spatial qualities, the ” illusion” of the recorded event .

It takes a lot of experience to install two loudspeakers correctly in a room, because the stereo system is so flawed, you really need the influence of the reflections from the walls in the room, to have a positive impact on what you hear . This demands knowledge of ” the optimal delay” for such reflexes in 2 channel sound .

ASR or GR research dont mention this , probably because the have not enough experience on how to install two speakers in a room for best sound , or they just doesnt care much for this .


Actually, not only the ears but the eyes as well affect how the brain interprets imaging, that is right and left placement. For example, I was in a club one time watching a small band and one wall on one side of them was 20 feet further away then the other, when I closed my eyes the drum moved cosiderably to the right, (due to reflections delays) yet when I opened them the drums snapped right into place where I saw them, so it is very complex.
 

Tangband

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
2,994
Likes
2,789
Location
Sweden
Actually, not only the ears but the eyes as well affect how the brain interprets imaging, that is right and left placement. For example, I was in a club one time watching a small band and one wall on one side of them was 20 feet further away then the other, when I closed my eyes the drum moved cosiderably to the right, (due to reflections delays) yet when I opened them the drums snapped right into place where I saw them, so it is very complex.
Yes, the brain has intelligence and interacts with all the sences, including ” the cocktail party effect” and the ” precedence effect” .
The brain selects sounds.

Very different from how a microphone works , it takes up all sound .

Read more here :

 

tomtoo

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 20, 2019
Messages
3,607
Likes
4,514
Location
Germany
As a former DIY:er and reader of many theories ( including Tooles ) and have tried most of them - I dont see ASR or GR research as the only true sites to learn from .

As Goat76 wrote earlier , testing and only listening to only one speaker in a room doesnt show 100% how two loudspeakers in a room , in stereo will perform.

It might be interesting though, to see the freq. linearity of the speaker and also the distortion measurements .

Tonycollinet wrote ( rightly ) that the stereoimage appear in the brain of the listener, and in two channel listening there are reflections from the walls thats playing a big part on how we experience spatial qualities, the ” illusion” of the recorded event .

It takes a lot of experience to install two loudspeakers correctly in a room, because the stereo system is so flawed, you really need the influence of the reflections from the walls in the room, to have a positive impact on what you hear . This demands knowledge of ” the optimal delay” for such reflexes in 2 channel sound . 20-25 ms delay of the wall reflections can positively contribute to a good spatial experience - ruling out small rooms where this is impossible.

ASR or GR research dont mention this , probably because they have not enough experience , or they just dont care much for installement.

Or maybe they realise that the perfect installed two channel system in a specific room with its psycoacoustic impact, dont obey by any fixed rule , impossible to explain in writing … in the end, you have to trust your ears .

Thats why Amir goes the only possible way. Take the 20% of extremly complicated things out.
You could say, but this is better in this or that room. Endless possibilitys.
Yes nothing is perfect.
 

markus

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Sep 8, 2019
Messages
646
Likes
653
As a former DIY:er and reader of many theories ( including Tooles ) and have tried most of them - I dont see ASR or GR research as the only true sites to learn from .

As Goat76 wrote earlier , testing and only listening to only one speaker in a room doesnt show 100% how two loudspeakers in a room , in stereo will perform.

It might be interesting though, to see the freq. linearity of the speaker and also the distortion measurements .

Tonycollinet wrote ( rightly ) that the stereoimage appear in the brain of the listener, and in two channel listening there are reflections from the walls thats playing a big part on how we experience spatial qualities, the ” illusion” of the recorded event .

It takes a lot of experience to install two loudspeakers correctly in a room, because the stereo system is so flawed, you really need the influence of the reflections from the walls in the room, to have a positive impact on what you hear . This demands knowledge of ” the optimal delay” for such reflexes in 2 channel sound . 20-25 ms delay of the wall reflections can positively contribute to a good spatial experience - ruling out small rooms where this is impossible.

ASR or GR research dont mention this , probably because they have not enough experience , or they just dont care much for installement.

Or maybe they realise that the perfect installed two channel system in a specific room with its psycoacoustic impact, dont obey by any fixed rule , impossible to explain in writing … in the end, you have to trust your ears .
Not sure the stereo system is "flawed". It's certainly not fully understood from a psychoacoustic perspective.

Anyway, the real problem is that the "you need to listen to it" crowd likes to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Measurements won't show you how a specific speaker will image in your particular room (although even that seems to be within reach if the necessary psychoacoustic research is done). So they discount any measurements. But audio reproduction is an engineering task. It's essential to do measurements to verify that your components don't malfunction and reach a certain level of performance. There's no substitute for it. There's also no faster way to verify performance. Building like 200 different passive crossovers and listening to them in highly biased sighted listening sessions is an exercise in futility.

So in this context Amir's measurements are a verification of performance. That should be the basis of any equipment review. I would actually like to see even more extensive testing. All alarms should go off when a manufacturer publicly states that such measurements are not needed for a proper review.
 

Spkrdctr

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 22, 2021
Messages
2,212
Likes
2,934
Most of the sound from a pair of speakers is direct, i.e. a line from the speakers to the listener. That is the same mono or stereo. Directivity, or dispersion if you prefer, along with the room's effects (reflections and such), influence the "space" you hear. Research from Toole and others indicate smooth off-axis response is critical to that. Which is measured using a single speaker. Using two bad speakers in a stereo pair does not make them better than two good speakers in a stereo pair. These "single speaker testing is meaningless/wrong/whatever" arguments pop up on all audio fora almost inevitably driven by some "expert" or lay person unwilling or unable to understand the decades of research behind the reason for single-speaker testing, and who have already decided the answer so any contrary arguments are attacked and discarded.
Don, that is the difference between psychoacoustic and psychotic-acoustic work. Often people who have no knowledge of audio can't believe that what doesn't "seem" to make sense is in fact true. To them, the single speaker testing is horribly flawed and does not make any sense at all. Any and probably all of the thousands of global internet/YouTube subjective audio review forum sites would jump on the single speaker test as horribly wrong. Psychotic-acoustic practitioners are hard to argue with. It is just such a large leap from starting out to getting some real knowledge. This website does a very good job of allowing self paced learning with Amir's videos and forum posts by our experts like you. Thanks for participating, I enjoy your posts.
 

Tangband

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
2,994
Likes
2,789
Location
Sweden
Not sure the stereo system is "flawed". It's certainly not fully understood from a psychoacoustic perspective.

Anyway, the real problem is that the "you need to listen to it" crowd likes to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Measurements won't show you how a specific speaker will image in your particular room (although even that seems to be within reach if the necessary psychoacoustic research is done). So they discount any measurements. But audio reproduction is an engineering task. It's essential to do measurements to verify that your components don't malfunction and reach a certain level of performance. There's no substitute for it. There's also no faster way to verify performance. Building like 200 different passive crossovers and listening to them in highly biased sighted listening sessions is an exercise in futility.

So in this context Amir's measurements are a verification of performance. That should be the basis of any equipment review. I would actually like to see even more extensive testing. All alarms should go off when a manufacturer publicly states that such measurements are not needed for a proper review.
I wouldnt buy anything without seing basic measurements and listening carefully, regardless of price.
In that way ASR is really good for the measurements.

You have to rely on your ears to do the listening . And do basic installing of the loudspeakers before listening critically.
 

Spkrdctr

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 22, 2021
Messages
2,212
Likes
2,934
Very true. We would probably learn (again) how blind testing puts stress on the subject which in turn makes him lose all hearing abilities under such "unnatural" listening conditions...
Are you joking?
 

mhardy6647

Grand Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
11,217
Likes
24,182
If no one's posted this great song by War in the context of this thread... well... now someone has.


PS Most of War's recorded output, besides being excellent & timelessly thought-provoking, sounds pretty good, too! :)
 

Somafunk

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2021
Messages
1,311
Likes
3,025
Location
Scotland
It takes a lot of experience to install two loudspeakers correctly in a room, because the stereo system is so flawed, you really need the influence of the reflections from the walls in the room, to have a positive impact on what you hear

Id rather listen to my stereo setup where room reflections do not encroach on the stereo image coming from my speakers, reflections merely confuse - room treatment for the win in my case.
 

sejarzo

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
961
Likes
1,066
Actually, not only the ears but the eyes as well affect how the brain interprets imaging, that is right and left placement. For example, I was in a club one time watching a small band and one wall on one side of them was 20 feet further away then the other, when I closed my eyes the drum moved cosiderably to the right, (due to reflections delays) yet when I opened them the drums snapped right into place where I saw them, so it is very complex.

That's the same thing every time I have attended the Chicago SO in Symphony Hall, from every different location on the main floor or first balcony. The percussion section in particular shifts almost entirely across the stage in some seats when one closes the eyes. From many seats, closing my eyes resulted in sort of a wide mono sound with very little precise location.

Thus stereo imaging in a reproduction system, as far as I am concerned, simply provides a believable illusion of a real space without it being a direct representation of a real space. The same orchestra recorded in the same space by different engineers each using their preferred mic arrangement will sound markedly different. Compare any pre-Michael Bishop Telarc recordings to those he engineered of the same orchestra in the same hall.

The fact that most pop music is always recorded via extremely close micing with artificial reverb and then mixed means that any illusion/perception of a real space is simply that--all in the mind. I'm sure that a recording has been produced that sounds like it has "incredible depth and pinpoint imaging" that was never acoustic sound in a real space recorded with great mics but merely computer generated synths on a DAW.

Years ago, when I was putting together a home theater/listening room, I went to quite a few shops to audition speakers. All seemed to have reasonably symmetric setups, and I brought my own CDs. Imaging was typically different from room to room. One of the owners who was a fairly accomplished musician told me from his perspective "A speaker has to get tone and timbre right. If it images well in my room then it's a bonus, but if all the instruments don't sound right, it's just not a good speaker at all." Of course that didn't mean he refused to sell some of those not good at all speakers because some people liked them...a lot.
 

dwkdnvr

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
418
Likes
698
I have to admit I'm a bit disappointed in the amount of press and attention Danny is getting around here. Is should be clear to everyone within about 5 minutes that Danny is essentially a throwback to the 70s/80s audio industry. He believes that music reproduction is inherently mysterious and beyond the ken of mere mortals. Only the Truly Great Men(tm) - the Gurus - can help you navigate getting High End sound. He obviously and deliberately cultivates a "Guru and his disciples" dynamic in everything he does. ASR is founded on more or less diametrically opposed ideas.

The interaction with Danny and ASR could only ever have one possible outcome, and that is confrontation and emnity. I would much rather that Amir and Rick would have chosen a different set of kits and just ignored GR Research altogether. It was obvious from the outset that something like the LGK was absolutely incapable of measuring well according to ASR methodology regardless of the inherent quality of the driver, and so it just strikes me that this was something of a theatrical exercise rather than an honest attempt at discovery.

And, it should be recognized that it's far from the first time Danny has run afoul of internet communities. He's been run out or banned from many of the online communities due to the inherent volatility of dealing with him and his disciples.

Oh, well. Mostly my own fault for continuing to pay any attention when I realized that Danny was involved.
 

Raindog123

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 23, 2020
Messages
1,599
Likes
3,554
Location
Melbourne, FL, USA
The Aspects of speaker performance that impact depth and separation (directivity, off axis performance etc) are already measured. But depth and separation themselves are subjective p effects that take place inside the brain, and cannot therefore be measured.

The depth and separation at their root are the result of interference between two (multiple) waves. Where the summation can be additive or cancelling, time-synchronized or delayed. Leading to "psychoacoustic" interpretation of it... Just like the [very physical, measurable effect of] SPL-level leads to "psychoacoustic interpretation" of sound loudness to a listener. :)

[Just like the perception of depth in a hologram - that goes way beyond the flat hologram plate, or a VR set - where the eyes (brain) see objects way to the left/right of eyes' actual axes (without any wall bouncing :) ) The "truth truth" is that you cannot achieve it with just two _point_ sources, you need "arrays" of source info...]
 
Last edited:

dfuller

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 26, 2020
Messages
3,339
Likes
5,063
The fact that most pop music is always recorded via extremely close micing with artificial reverb and then mixed means that any illusion/perception of a real space is simply that--all in the mind. I'm sure that a recording has been produced that sounds like it has "incredible depth and pinpoint imaging" that was never acoustic sound in a real space recorded with great mics but merely computer generated synths on a DAW.
Not even just pop music! Pretty much anything that isn't an orchestra (and even then) is recorded this way.
 

Tangband

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
2,994
Likes
2,789
Location
Sweden
Id rather listen to my stereo setup where room reflections do not encroach on the stereo image coming from my speakers, reflections merely confuse - room treatment for the win in my case.
If you want the next level in experience of 2- channel music, you have to involve some of the wallreflections ( if you can and have a big room ) because the stereo system IS flawed. Its nowhere near the real music event. If you dont believe me - try doing your own recordings .

This is not controversial at all.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom