It is why the human ear is better at Reception than any microphone or test gear yet can't be explained.
You're way off, there.
It is why the human ear is better at Reception than any microphone or test gear yet can't be explained.
Who is this "Dr. Gilroy"?
I assume this was created by using a translator.I any case, it's nonsense.
That may be, but your writing is incomprehensible.I speak perfectly good English.
My Dr Gilroy what?I assume this was created by using a translator. I any case, it's nonsense.
That may be, but your writing is incomprehensible.
Troll has been eradicated. We seem to be attracting them like Moths to a flame.
Traditional exponential horns seem to me to present the ear with a much higher proportion of on-axis signal and much less of reflection. They are the opposite of wide-directivity that sounds accurate over a large part of a typical residential room, but they demand a sweet spot unless the room is so large that one can be far enough away for the beam to become large. They always, it seems to me, to give the sense of coming from “over there”, where wide-directivity speakers create an encompassing surround field.
I don’t know how that relates to the perception of size, but it does give a different sense of localization in the a room.
It’s a good question, and I will freely admit I’m fully in the realm of the subjective. The term “envelopment”, that Toole uses, describes what I’m talking about best, I think. Not necessarily a very wide soundstage, but one that feels more on the scale of a real performance (my live reference for listening is almost entirely classical - while I love rock and Jazz, the performances and studio recordings tend to be unique, sound-wise). Imagine the difference between a small desktop/subwoofer system from a distance and your high-end setup. It’s weird, because I typically use the KEFs pretty near field - like 6 feet - and the Harbeths at more like 12-15 feet.
It could even be the product of more chaotic reflected sound. My old Magnepans also did well in this department, although image stability was inconsistent, and they could be fatiguing. And the visuals may be throwing me off, of course.
In terms of soundstage width, my experience is that the wider the lower the directivity of a speaker is, the wider the soundstage is. To me that seems to be the main disadvantage of narrower dispersion.
In Toole's book, I remember he defines a specific frequency range for "envelopment". Going from memory, it's fairly low(like 200-600Hz?), but I'll see if I can find it.
*Edit: I think @napilopez posted the chart recently. Perhaps he can assist?
You may be confusing "simulated", sound of your room, with what is actually on the recording.
For this we need an LOL emoji. Something just tanked!It's not Gilroy, it's Kilroy (was here)
View attachment 129099
For this we need an LOL emoji. Something just tanked!
"Sound of your room" and "what is actually on the recording" is a separate thing to me. For that, I believe that the narrower the dispersion, the closer I get to "what is actually on the recording", as I'm hearing a higher percentage of direct sound. My JTRs get me closer to hearing the spaciousness on the recording, but some seem to find that additional spaciousness(added by more reflections) is preferable.
In science, nothing is ever 'absolutely' proved or not. All its findings are provisional, pending new data. You can fail and fail and fail to find evidence for a hypothesis being correct, yet, the possibility remains. It approaches zero but never gets there. Yet science doesn't 'behave' as if nothing is effectively proved or disproved. It couldn't advance otherwise. Absence of (good) evidence, contrary to folk wisdom, certainly counts as 'evidence of absence' in science. Provisionally.
There is a non zero probability that all the air molecules in your room could compact themselves into a corner, leaving you gasping for breath. But there's very good reason to expect it won't. Ditto, scientists aren't particularly worried about the so-far known properties of cables and human ears and human bias being overturned by evidence like yours.
Your respect for science is such that you'll post unscientifically-grounded claims about hearing cable sound...discount explanations for them that are well-grounded in physics (the measurable properties of cable) and psychoacoustics (the limits of human hearing, the role of sighted bias in audio comparisons)...and then evince a need for 'even one published study' that suits *you*.
I recall one JAES paper discussing speaker/cable combinations that would prove audible (unless I am misremembering...it's an old paper). I can think of a few audio magazine articles and some tests conducted by audio hobbyists and reported online. The findings are as for 'amp difference'. In both cases, we can predict that, if components in a signal chain are mismatched badly enough, or defective enough for the intended purpose, there are audible effects. And by golly in the case of cables, if you skimp on cable thickness and length, or use crappy terminations, or don't shield them as necessary, those predictions prove true! In blind tests. The measurements show us why. There is no mystery about it.
I understand what you mean by "if you fail often enough, you asymptotically approach absolute proof." My question was -- where's the "failing often enough" you're referring to? Are you referring to studies or something else?
That is what inferential statistics are for:
https://www.amazon.com/Statistical-...p-0070709823/dp/0070709823/ref=dp_ob_title_bk