Brick & mortar shops have dropped like flies, and most people don't live in the urban centers where the remaining shops still exist. The reality is that for the vast majority of people, it's either buy without listening or don't buy at all.
I understand the issue.
Yes, because we now have very robust, reliable, repeatable, and effective measurements. So when people make extraordinary claims based on sighted listening, claims that are at odds with measurements but for which no blind listening data exists, a scientific-minded person will naturally dismiss them, because we know a great deal about how unreliable sighted listening is.
The notion that this defines what we perceive is superficially logical, but misses that important point that there is a brain between the ears that processes the BINAURAL signals, separating the direct sound from reflections and among those, the early from the late - and so on. In rooms the direct sound is a dominant factor in sound quality assessments, but it is not a dominant factor in room curves. A single in-ear measurement is really a room curve with HRTFs added. A single curve does not define how a loudspeaker sounds in a room so it cannot be a flawless reference.
. In loudspeakers it is also true for the recorded material, but we see loudspeakers and a room which we can recognize. There is still a justification for live performances.
The entire directivity issue is one that results, at best, in guidance, not a definitive target. The highest priority in a loudspeaker is to eliminate audible resonances, and that is still a challenge it seems. The target is a flattish and smooth on-axis curve, and smooth off-axis performance. This describes a loudspeaker that has a high probability of not fundamentally changing the sound of recordings being reproduced. The next layer of concern is spectral balance, and this is seriously complicated by two factors we cannot avoid: the listening room and recordings themselves. Because recordings are mixed and mastered in rooms and with loudspeakers that are different from yours or mine means that simple things like bass and treble balance are inconsistent. Many (most?) people ignore this and get on with enjoying the music, but fussy listeners may reach for tone controls or equalizers to improve things.
Hi Floyd, would you agree that if 2 speakers both exhibit such characteristics, it would be prudent to blind listen to see which may be preferred by ears?
Agree. This paper seems to suggest that lower LF decay times may be key to spatial perception as well. https://audioroundtable.com/misc/icad2005F96.pdf
True, but with monopoles there is no such orientation option...if this helps.
Also true, but why not multiple cardioid subwoofers? If the AES site wasn't permanently broken I'd provide a direct link, but -
Of course.
Because room modes behave as minimum-phase phenomena, reducing the amplitude of a resonant peak also reduces the ringing. Evidence is that the frequency-response is more reliable as an audible cue. Section 9.6.2 in the 4th edition.
Yes, monopoles make life simpler.
If your budget allows it, why not? However, in the end I can't think whey there should be any difference in equally well engineered multiple woofer systems. Location matters most with both kinds of subs.
Right, I don't think any sane person argues against EQ. However, its usable for monopoles, dipoles and cardioids. Equally.
I will look at that section to try to make sense of your answer. The McGill paper showed the importance of room LF decay times with regards to spatial perception of correlated vs decorrelated LF.
But with zero beneficial orientation capacity. Again, broken AES Low-frequency polar pattern control for improved in-room response Juha Backman
Yes location matters but the cardioids (and dipoles) have lower decay times (paper in previous post), especially at frequencies where acoustic treatments are near useless or impractical. DIRAC purports to reduce times also.
Don't bother, I just scanned the McGill paper and they are interested in spatial bass, not timbrally accurate bass. They are different, and there is a thread on this site discussing it at length. They simply found that below about 50 Hz decorrelated (spatial) bass was harder to discern in their small room - and this seems entirely plausible. Small rooms also present bigger problems for timbral accuracy. Ideally we want both timbral accuracy and some delivery of spatial bass. It has yet to be done in small rooms as far as I know.
The decay times are determined by the amplitude and Q of the room modes. The loudspeakers simply provide energy to these modes, some more than others, some are directionally sensitive, monopoles not so. If the energy is reduced, so is the ringing. If EQ is used the ringing also is reduced. It seems like physics. What am I missing?
Perhaps the following is an interesting approach. Not to replace anything, but to supplement the spinorama measurements.
www.audiosciencereview.com
How small is "small?"
Hi Floyd,
Perhaps I misunderstood your previous highlighted comments. I thought you were agreeing with what these AES papers found:
If not, what would the advantage be?
Enjoy!
This has to be quick
. The advantage applies only if one is not using subwoofers. In other words the playback sound level is determined by the mid & high frequencies, and if the bass energy coupling is less with cardioid woofing, the room mode excitation will of course be less than a monopole woofer. But the location of the cardioid woofer in this case is determined by stereo needs, not where room mode peaks and nulls happen to be. The results are not guaranteed.
There are no rigid rules that I know of, but my criterion is based on room resonances falling within the musical frequency range. One thing I love about live classical concerts the profoundly neutral smoothly extended bass in the large halls. By this standard all domestic spaces are small rooms.
I can't agree with this, cardioids are not simply reduced output monopoles, for the same LP magnitude response, they offer lower decays times, as the above studies confirmed.
I'm on my way out . . . Monopoles are pressure sources maximally coupling energy at pressure peaks in standing waves. Dipoles are velocity sources and maximally couple their energy in pressure nulls, and when oriented 90 deg from the null line. One can place a dipole in a null and turn the resonance amplitude -and its decay - up and down by rotating it. Cardioids are a combination of both.
We are in agreement there, Safe travels
