A Broad Discussion of Speakers with Major Audio Luminaries

[rdenney]

Thanks for the nice read about real experiences. (Yes, I read it all

What you tell in the first sentence could have been from me. See my "signature". Belief is everything, mostly. But I wouldn't call it 'illusion'. In regard to the orchestra, I'm not into old music, it's just the age. You know, as science progresses, so does art.
...

Good art is good art no matter when it was created. I am no worshipper of innovation for the sake of innovation, which I think has become a fad with art of all forms, probably really accelerating with the start of the Modern Period. The sculptures of ancient Greece can be as moving and evocative as anything created today. Likewise, a 14th-century Gregorian chant can be as achingly beautiful as the Arvo Pärt choral work I recently heard at the Washington National Cathedral, and a Bach organ work can be as loudly thrilling as that Shostakovich symphony (or that heavy metal band).

So, no, I don't think art "progresses". I think it changes, to reflect the context and the times. Technique, and the technology of art delivery, may progress, but that progress often is not used to improve the art, but rather to make poor art easier. There are exceptions, of course.

That said, everything I wrote applies equally to any acoustic music presentation, even if what we are acoustically listening to is some band's road PA system. In that case, though, I usually have to ignore what is often bad sound amplification to hear and appreciate the art of the performance. I used orchestra music as an example because my experiences with it are varied enough to draw distinctions that seemed to me relevant to the points you raised.

But if I caution against letting the playback equipment supersede the music, I also caution against evaluating the playback equipment in terms of the art. "I don't like old classical music therefore I don't like systems that play it well." Believe me, my system can play any genre just fine.

Rick "just as apt to listen to prog rock or bluegrass as classical" Denney

 

[Timcognito]

Who are the “naysayers” in this thread? Just because some of us like to broaden the discussion and take it further, doesn't mean we are “naysayers”. Science hardly never stands still, new knowledge is often won by letting the discussion be open, and that will unavoidably lead to different views on the matter.

I rest my case.

 

[Heinrich]

Good art is good art no matter when it was created. ... But if I caution against letting the playback equipment supersede the music, I also caution against evaluating the playback equipment in terms of the art. "I don't like old classical music therefore I don't like systems that play it well." Believe me, my system can play any genre just fine.

I'm not an idealist, neither with speakers nor with art. Art can lose its tongue quickly. You're right in regard to modernistic quatsch, but such was had any time in the past also. Pick what speaks to you - literally.

Reiterated, I see a good playback system as a form of art, like many other technical achievements. It speaks to what is real in terms of human genius. Maybe this is formulated more comprehensable: because I want art to speak to me, a playback must not be presented as an "as if", the illusion thing. It is anyway chopped into pieces by the recording process. Better the craftsman at the mixing console knows how to do it right, rather than to try the impossible. cu

 

[rdenney]

I'm not an idealist, neither with speakers nor with art. Art can lose its tongue quickly. You're right in regard to modernistic quatsch, but such was had any time in the past also. Pick what speaks to you - literally.

Reiterated, I see a good playback system as a form of art, like many other technical achievements. It speaks to what is real in terms of human genius. Maybe this is formulated more comprehensable: because I want art to speak to me, a playback must not be presented as an "as if", the illusion thing. It is anyway chopped into pieces by the recording process. Better the craftsman at the mixing console knows how to do it right, rather than to try the impossible. cu

I don't see playback as art, but as craft. High craft, in some cases, but often it's just good engineering. But good engineering may seem like magic to non-engineers (I'm not saying that's you). Genius is high intelligence that can be applied to both art and craft, but it doesn't shift what is craft to what is art, in my view.

My own engineering field has a tiny fraction of knowable behavior compared to audio equipment, because it is behavior-based and stochastic. But even there, good engineering is good engineering. I know few colleagues that are called artists simply because they see the engineering relationships with transparency most others do not. I might even put myself in that category, but I know what it took to get there, and it wasn't anything like creating art. I know what that entails, too, or at least I know it follows a different mental pathway.

Much of the recorded music production process avoids rather than being obedient to good engineering, and in all cases the result is worse, not better, for those who just want to listen to music. But the guy sitting at the mixing desk using his ears is part of the art production process, for better or worse. The guy designing an amp or a DAC is not.

Rick "avoiding the mutation of craft into art just because it's hard or because a genius makes it look easy" Denney

 

[Thomas Lund]

Just noticed this resurrected thread under a different name. At the risk of disturbing its cosy self-oscillation, in case some would like to also consider the hard problem of monitoring, time-domain neutrality, have a look at Bass and Subwoofers,

https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/bass-and-subwoofers.51589/

A quote from JJ about measuring AE as we hear it may serve as an appetiser: A lot remains unknown, thanks to the adherence of 60+ years of "you can't hear imaging below 90Hz" misinterpretation of "can't hear direction" as "can't hear anything else, either". It's one of the two big horrors in audio science, the other one being that intraaural phase shift is not audible.

 

[Newman]

measuring AE as we hear it

AE?

 

[Keith_W]

AE?

Acoustic Envelopment - the idea that we can hear stereo bass. I would like to hear Dr. Toole's take on it and see whether the 4th Edition of his book is updated with more recent publications by Lund and others.

 

[Heinrich]

Acoustic Envelopment - the idea that we can hear stereo bass. I would like to hear Dr. Toole's take on it and see whether the 4th Edition of his book is updated with more recent publications by Lund and others.

Why would you need somebody elses input on this? Should be easy:
Get yourself a DAW (digital audio workstation) and create your own mix with properties as advertised, e/g in the excerpt of Dr. Griesinger's piece n stereo bass, linked in post #605. Give it a listen, dependencies?

>> http://www.davidgriesinger.com/asa05.pdf

 

[Chr1]

Apologies, a bit late to this thread.

Can anyone point me to a good source of information on Acoustic Envelopment?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Sokel]

Apologies, a bit late to this thread.

Can anyone point me to a good source of information on Acoustic Envelopment?

Thanks in advance.

It's not "Acoustic", it's "Auditory Envelopment" .


Here:

https://assets.swoogo.com/uploads/4646601-673c03ab61c93.pdf

 

[Newman]

Acoustic Envelopment - the idea that we can hear stereo bass. I would like to hear Dr. Toole's take on it and see whether the 4th Edition of his book is updated with more recent publications by Lund and others.

Thanks. I wait with bated breath.

I understand the idea of 'AE' going up with multiple subwoofers presenting the sub-bass from multiple directions. I thought that was what Griesinger was saying. But that does not require the subs to be carrying discrete information, ie L and R sub-bass that differ from one another.

Also, we need to note that plenty of bass is being retained in MCH recordings above the sub-bass level, ie bass above 80 Hz, which is being sent to the mains and surround and height speakers anyway. So, even with summed sub-bass, we have that going on above 80 Hz.

Which means, for the stereo bass argument to be an argument against summed sub-bass, it needs to be demonstrated that improvements are heard when multiple subs have their content changed from summed to discrete, in the presence of discrete bass being played by all the other speakers. Anything other than this isn't quite demonstrating what needs to be demonstrated.

cheers

 

[goat76]

understand the idea of 'AE' going up with multiple subwoofers presenting the sub-bass from multiple directions. I thought that was what Griesinger was saying. But that does not require the subs to be carrying discrete information, ie L and R sub-bass that differ from one another.

No, that is wrong. The absolute minimum requirement for AE to work is to keep the left and the right channels fully discrete.

 

[Sokel]

Here's another post about it:

Genelec 8351B Review (Studio Monitor)

It's not particularly difficult to make them complain without hitting the limiters. Sub heavy content (hip hop, especially) even at reasonable levels will do it. If you need a good example, Hey Now on Kendrick Lamar's new album will do it. That's a speaker killer. Either speakers are faulty or...

www.audiosciencereview.com

I quote for nicer thread flow:

Great questions for a New Year. Floorstanders come with benefits, beyond headroom and low frequency extension. However, the main advantage has been somewhat kept a secret; due to a stubborn and detrimental simplification of reproduced sound in engineering literature: Disregard for inter-aural time domain coherency at low frequency. In case LF inter-aural time and magnitude differences have been recorded across channels, and made it safely through a reproduction chain, it is such a pity to kill Auditory Envelopment (AE) at the last stage, by using mono sub(s) with bookshelf/nearfield monitors. That’s game over before even started.

Floorstander-users expect at least some ability of a room and system to convey AE, possibly the most universal and enjoyable dimension the human auditory system is able to declare. The topic has been discussed before on ASR, and we will report from new studies in 2025. To the questions:

Genelec 83 series monitors include extensive per channel frequency domain and time domain adjustment capability. The GLM application can be used to adjust those parameters automatically, manually or in a combination of both. You might also make adjustments upstream instead, or partly upstream and partly in the 83s. Anyway, settings may be stored and set in stone per monitor. Settings will stay the same despite power-down; until GLM is connected again and deliberate changes made.

Building your own subs, for instance into walls, or buying a different brand, is therefore also fine. Because of AE, I would *always* use at least two sub channels. If later movement of subs will be impossible, consider listening to AE test samples before committing to placement. If two subs are not possible, I would not cross-over higher than 40 Hz.

Regarding hearing safety, with an average listening level of 105 dB(A), according to the clinical gold standard, adults should be listening for no more than 2 minutes per day (risk of material hearing loss ~1%).

 

[Elkerton]

I cannot dispute Lund's research. I wonder, though, how one will be able to manage room eigentones as easily as one can do with mono signals sent to all subs well placed in a room, or alternatively, is the AE achieved with stereo (or more) subs preferable to flat bass response.

 

[Newman]

No, that is wrong. The absolute minimum requirement for AE to work is to keep the left and the right channels fully discrete.

Thanks, this is an area that I have paid scant attention to.

However, a little digging in this very thread and I came across a post by Dr Toole, a former colleague of Dr Griesinger at Harman Kardon, where he very specifically addresses this issue and the critical question of significance of the effect itself, as well as the importance of the sub-bass frequencies. Quoting from the post:-

[with sub-sat systems] there were voices saying that "stereo bass" was lost, which is true. The next question is "how important is stereo bass?". Within Harman, David Griesinger was an advocate, arguing, correctly, that in concert halls the dimensions allow for "directionality" in long-wavelength, low-frequency sounds and that this could/would/might be a factor in perceived envelopment. The long wavelengths (20 ft/6 m at 50 Hz) compared to the spacing of the ears means that the effect is likely to be subtle compared to binaural effects at higher frequencies, but human hearing is good at detecting subtleties. We mounted a demonstration, set up by David, in which we listened to a variety of stereo vs mono subwoofer comparisons using a wide variety of music and digitally contrived signals that should have been good at revealing differences. This was done at several stereo-to-mono crossover frequencies, using different layouts, with the auditioning being done in a largish living room. It was definitely a serious effort.

Differences were heard, but they were quite subtle. Differences in sound quality were expected, because the excitation of room modes is quite different when two subs are operating in mono or stereo - i.e. receiving the same or different signals. These differences would depend on the stereo separation at bass frequencies in the program material (LPs don't qualify - all low bass is mono). But here we were making an effort to focus on differences in "space/ envelopment", to the extent that such a perceptual differentiation is possible. The differences we could report seemed to fade to insignificance at a crossover frequency of about 80 Hz, a figure supported by other investigations described in Section 8.4 of the 3rd edition, provocatively entitled "Stereo Bass: little ado about even less", with apologies to William Shakespeare, if indeed he wrote the words. The conclusion was that the necessary spatial information exists at frequencies above about 80 Hz, and therefore it is present in bass managed systems. It is a stereo "upper-bass" effect, not a stereo low-bass effect. There is also a subtle problem in A vs B comparisons - hearing a "difference" is not declaring superiority of one option - here we were content to hear a difference.

Is that a definitive statement? Probably not, but it strongly suggests that whatever potential there is for enhancing envelopment by capturing directional bass cues in large spaces and reproducing them in small rooms must be achieved while at the same time reducing seat-to-seat variations and room resonances, both of which are easily audible. Because listening rooms are not standardized any wavefront reconstruction exercise is clearly a custom listening room, multichannel audio system - expensive - solution. Present indications in the audio industry are that it is not likely to be commercially successful. But it is an interesting academic exercise.

(my emphasis)
Which is pretty much exactly what I said in my post above. I must have previously read Toole's post and subconsciously recounted its essence as my own thoughts, LOL.

cheers

 

[Keith_W]

I cannot dispute Lund's research. I wonder, though, how one will be able to manage room eigentones as easily as one can do with mono signals sent to all subs well placed in a room, or alternatively, is the AE achieved with stereo (or more) subs preferable to flat bass response.

Of course you can. We can start by pointing out the fact that his experiments were done at the top of a hill with subwoofers on the front/rear and left/right sides the listener/test subject. I have no doubt that his experiment was conducted and reported correctly, but at the top of the hill ... once the sound goes past the listener, it never returns. Whether this effect translates into a small listening room is another matter. From what Dr. Toole has previously written on the subject (Chapter 8.4 in the 3rd Edition of his book, "Stereo Bass: Little Ado about Even Less") he cites lack of studies to support this idea, although it is important to point out the book was published in 2016. He also reported attending some demonstrations where he thought that the effect was so subtle that it's "not a mass market concern". Dr. Toole did not describe in his book exactly how the experiment was conducted, what size room, etc.

This is not to say that I do not respect Lund's findings, or JJ's findings, or what Dr. Toole says.

And @Sokel, thanks for the correction. "Auditory Envelopment" ... d'oh!

 

[audiofooled]

Just noticed this resurrected thread under a different name. At the risk of disturbing its cosy self-oscillation, in case some would like to also consider the hard problem of monitoring, time-domain neutrality, have a look at Bass and Subwoofers,

https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/bass-and-subwoofers.51589/

A quote from JJ about measuring AE as we hear it may serve as an appetiser: A lot remains unknown, thanks to the adherence of 60+ years of "you can't hear imaging below 90Hz" misinterpretation of "can't hear direction" as "can't hear anything else, either". It's one of the two big horrors in audio science, the other one being that intraaural phase shift is not audible.

Given the title of this thread, it's seems adequate to expand it further with interesting subjects and see where it goes. To me, besides AE, another point for discussion may be the perception of "Proximity" (Lokki et al.)

To quote David Griesinger http://www.ica2016.org.ar/ica2016proceedings/ica2016/ICA2016-0379.pdf :

“Proximity” – the perception of being sonically close to a sound source - is not commonly found as a descriptor of concert hall sound. But Lokki et al. have identified proximity as perhaps the most important acoustic perception affecting preference."

"We believe a primary mechanism for both source separation and the perception of proximity resides in the spiral ganglia just below the hair cells in the basilar ligament, and that the mechanism relies on the phase alignment of the upper harmonics of music and speech."

Time domain being of high importance for both of the perceptions, but also other properties of loudspeakers and rooms, it would be nice to see if there's more research into these subjects.

 

[Heinrich]

... Dr Griesinger at Harman Kardon, where he very specifically addresses this issue and the critical question of significance of the effect itself, as well as the importance of the sub-bass frequencies.

Most of the time, with conventional speakers, the sub bass is missing. Conventional in a sense of a cost versus size versus fun factor compromise. In not too old records rare but significant 30Hz content is available. It makes a huge difference if this is transmitted, silently omitted, or substituted by boosted distortion.

But only huge, and regularly quite expensive speakers go down that low. That's natural, as bass reflex with such tuning is hard to do, even whith passive radiators and equalisation at hand. A matter of scaling.

The effect of these frequencies is, likewise, a feel of openess, pushing the spatial limits farther away, a bigger room. Only as an anecdote, I used to equalise the bass playing the two speaker together, correcting only for the sum. Reason was to not stress a weaker speaker position with e/q for troughs. Today I seem to prefer to e/q each speaker individually for flat(ter), and then after post-e/q the sum in an extra step.

 

[Thomas Lund]

Whether this effect translates into a small listening room is another matter.

Quite. The comment was primarily about monitoring, where mono bass “management” never should be used. Ever. However, putting all eggs in the frequency response basket may be somewhat justified in (unambitious) recreational listening.

Regarding which parameters to focus on, e.g. timbre or localisation, to quote Francis Rumsey from his brilliant talk at AES Chicago some years back, “it's measurable, and so people measure it."

Time domain being of high importance for both of the perceptions, but also other properties of loudspeakers and rooms, it would be nice to see if there's more research into these subjects.

Absolutely. Coming back to JJ’s horrors, science of course is a string of temporary opinions. In this field, a paradigm shift is bound soon to happen. Aalto University and others are scrutinising old dogma; but a shortcut is also possible: To listen. My hard of hearing mother can tell AE, and she enjoys it immensely. David’s reverb designs are still unsurpassed, and he surely used that same shortcut.

 

[olieb]

Quite. The comment was primarily about monitoring, where mono bass “management” never should be used. Ever.

So this is all about monitoring in the studio, but at the end you bring in your mother about the immense impact of AE in every day enjoyment?

However, putting all eggs in the frequency response basket may be somewhat justified in (unambitious) recreational listening.

I do not really know what "ambitious" listening is supposed to mean, but about that egg thing: The question is how many of those ordinary, unambitious eggs one has to trade for one of these "golden" AE eggs and whether that one really tastes that great.
And about that science thing: science is actually a bit more than "a string of temporary opinions" and paradigm shifts might happen or not, but prediction of the coming and nature of such is not a scientific discipline, it's more of a temporary opinion.
(This might be the place where I could bring in my mother but I will keep her out of this.)