Andrew Jones’s new speaker brand - Jones and Cerreta

[mhardy6647]

A septuagenarian's sighted listening is not a value add.

ouch.

 

[fpitas]

ouch.

Right? I resemble that!

 

[Duke]

Agreed, but I was just going from part of NTK's Toole quote, where Toole writes, "...Loudspeakers with bipole, dipole, and omnidirectional behavior are not involved with the creation of the art in the professional audio domain, so their involvement in playback is that of adding a "sound effect" that people find pleasurable - it all comes down to attempts to extract more satisfaction from stereo."

Agreed, such speakers are not involved in the creation of the art. And also agreed that such speakers are attempts to extract more satisfaction from stereo.

Again, imo whether the net result of an unconventional radiation pattern constitutes "adding a sound effect" depends on the specifics.

Depending on those specifics, imo an unconventional radiation pattern could theoretically create acoustic conditions at the listening position which, in some ways, more closely approach the acoustic conditions at the mix position of the studio control room. Especially if that unconventional radiation pattern is somewhat user-adjustable.

But I don't think this thread is the place for me to dive into those specifics.

 

[fpitas]

And depending on the specifics, imo an unconventional radiation pattern could theoretically create acoustic conditions at the listening position which, in some ways, more closely approach the acoustic conditions at the mix position of the studio control room.

To that I'll add that many large studios have horn-based monitors, which may or may not be used at the mixing desk, but are used to listen to the final product, especially when
The customers are there.

WARP

 

[Floyd Toole]

To be honest, I wasn't entirely sure whether he intended that statement to be read as saying all of those speakers can be equally wonderful, or whether he meant to say that within each of those categories, the ones with the smoothest frequency response and best spinoramas will be preferred in controlled listening tests.

It seems to me that, if one was to produce speakers in each of those categories with wonderful spinoramas, and then compare them in controlled listening tests, winners and losers would likely emerge. And if the winner wasn't likely to be conventional radiation pattern loudspeakers, then Toole would've found that very interesting and mentioned it.

Furthermore, as NTK pointed out with a different Toole quote, his view on unconventional radiation loudspeakers is that their potential merits are largely an attempt to make some kind of partial compensation for the failings of sound reproduction with only two loudspeakers. As soon as we move to multichannel playback systems, such speakers become less the solution and more the effect generator.

My final killjoy point on this is that Toole found through experimentation that differences in perceived spatial attributes are dominated by the recording, so any characteristics contributed by unconventional radiation loudspeakers are going to sometimes be swamped, sometimes be positive, and sometimes be negative, song by song. Plus more room dependent.

Of course, the point of all this is not to dissuade anybody from following their muse as an audiophile. But if the intention is to mount an argument in a public forum that there is a superiority on offer, from the unconventional solution, that is audibly apparent and worth promoting and recommending to the audiophile, then I'm really yet to be persuaded that the case has any strength.

Cheers

Thanks for the summary, Newman. I haven't been following this thread, but since my name is involved, perhaps a brief clarification is appropriate. At this late stage in my life I reflect on things somewhat simply - it is the big things that matter most, so getting those right is essential. After that one can seek all manner of "inner voices, detail, resolution imaging and soundstage" issues.

My research began with the notion that sound quality was the starting point - voices and instruments should sound natural, uncolored, and loudspeakers of that era all had strong "personalities". It was gratifying that in organized double-blind equal-loudness, multiple-loudspeaker comparison tests listeners reliably preferred loudspeakers that exhibited the fewest audible resonances. In measurement terms this translates into what is best described as "technical excellence" - flat and smooth direct sound, followed by similarly smooth off-axis sounds that appear as early reflections in small rooms. The tests used single loudspeakers - mono listening - because listeners were most sensitive to defects when listening in that mode. The highest rated loudspeakers in mono listening were also the highest rated in stereo and multichannel listening when sound quality was the criterion. This finding was repeated in loudspeakers having a variety of directional radiation patterns. In these tests the room and the recording were constant factors - loudspeakers were the variable and sound quality alone was the criterion of excellence.

However, when the "play" button is pressed at home all loudspeakers, including the "best" are at the mercy of the listening room a low frequencies - about 30% of our overall opinions of sound quality - and this must be dealt with in every playback setup or we are not comparing apples with apples. Two chapters in my books provide explanations and remedies.

BUT, as soon as one starts to judge soundstage and imaging the recording becomes part of the evaluation, and recordings exhibit enormous variability. They are created in control rooms by recording engineers who add their preferences and judgments to the final artistic product, while listening to their loudspeakers in their control rooms, not yours. These days a high percentage of monitoring is done in the direct sound field, either by using close (near-field) listening or by listening in acoustically dead, reflection-controlled rooms. So, what is heard during the creation of the art may be very different from the playback conditions in homes (or earphones).

Add to these significant uncertainties the basic fact that stereo is a directionally and spatially compromised format - fact not opinion. So, the recording engineers do what they can to create a directionally and spatially interesting artistic product, and consumers do what they can to achieve satisfaction with what they hear. These two objectives can be very different. As a result, we end up with strong subjective preferences for loudspeakers having different directional properties. No one of them is "perfect" or "correct". They are what they are: post processing alternatives that provide listeners with distinctive perceptual effects in terms of soundstage and imaging, spaciousness, and probably other subtleties. They are not right or wrong in a technical/moral sense, but they were not used when the art was created. If they provide satisfaction to the listener, that is sufficient justification. End of story.

Beyond this kind of acoustical manipulation of the playback sound field there are multichannel options. In my life's experience of listening to reproduced sound through loudspeakers, the most gratifying experience was a demonstration of an elaborate immersive set up by the creator and playing recordings done by the creator. They were stunning in their realism, there was no sweet spot, and I was in a concert hall, a cathedral, or even outdoors with manmade and natural sounds all around. It was a spine tingling experience. I wanted it! It could be reproduced in homes able to accommodate a multichannel setup. But, then, where does one get the source material? What about the colossal existing recorded repertoire in stereo, and more to come? All challenges, but it can be done. Small room resonances remain a challenge, as large performance spaces lack audible resonances in the musical bass frequency range - two ears and a brain cannot easily ignore that or what the eyes see when we are aiming to "transport" ourselves to different venues.

The other impressive playback experience was binaural (dummy head) recordings reproduced through head-tracked, calibrated headphones or through crosstalk-cancelled loudspeakers. Headphones remove the listening room entirely, and crosstalk cancelling with some control of bass resonances in the room can significantly "remove" the walls. It can be very gratifying. Again, where do we get the recordings of the artists and music we like? I have a feeling that this situation will improve because headphone listening is so popular, superb sounding headphones are available at affordable prices. Stereo through headphones is not stereo, but fortunately the digital post processing necessary to translate conventional stereo and multichannel "loudspeaker" recordings into more rewarding headphone experiences exist and more are in progress.

Upmixing stereo to multichannel is a lottery. When it works, it can be - in my opinion - a tasteful embellishment of the sense of envelopment, of being in a large space. But that requires the right up mixer combined with the right recording, both meeting the expectations of the listener and the program being auditioned. In my experience, a good upmixer (e.g. the long gone Lexicon algorithm) that does not destroy the soundstage while delivering delayed surround information to loudspeakers to the side (even 60 degrees to the side is enough) was rewarding. Now, it is a greater challenge, but by keeping the upmixed information at a low, background, level, it is still useful for certain kinds of music. It can easily be turned off, so it is an option to embellishing stereo that does not force one into choosing loudspeakers that are always in the delivery path, and frankly, are less rewarding (my personal opinion - let the flames begin ).

Cheers, Floyd

 

[Cote Dazur]

Thank you for the words of wisdom @Floyd Toole, your vast experience, scientific work and practical, no non sense, approach that you share with us is a breath of fresh air in an environment of black and white opinions, often based on misinterpretation of your legendary work.
Hoping to read more of you and keep getting a better audio experience trying to follow your recommendations to the best of my understanding.

 

[Duke]

... recording engineers do what they can to create a directionally and spatially interesting artistic product, and consumers do what they can to achieve satisfaction with what they hear. These two objectives can be very different. As a result, we end up with strong subjective preferences for loudspeakers having different directional properties. No one of them is "perfect" or "correct". They are what they are: post processing alternatives that provide listeners with distinctive perceptual effects in terms of soundstage and imaging, spaciousness, and probably other subtleties. They are not right or wrong in a technical/moral sense, but they were not used when the art was created. If they provide satisfaction to the listener, that is sufficient justification. End of story.

Thank you for taking the time to come in and clean up our mess a bit!

Upmixing stereo to multichannel is a lottery. When it works, it can be - in my opinion - a tasteful embellishment of the sense of envelopment, of being in a large space. But that requires the right up mixer combined with the right recording, both meeting the expectations of the listener and the program being auditioned. In my experience, a good upmixer (e.g. the long gone Lexicon algorithm) that does not destroy the soundstage while delivering delayed surround information to loudspeakers to the side (even 60 degrees to the side is enough) was rewarding.

My exploration into unconventional radiation patterns has been largely informed by David Griesinger, inventor of the Lexicon and its algorithm. Obviously I'm not doing anything remotely as sophisticated, but do seek to enable some of the reflection-field attributes he has identified as contributing to clarity plus envelopment in a concert hall.

(even 60 degrees to the side is enough)

Where possible, I use that arrival-direction geometry for the additional late-onset reflection energy, drawing directly from research YOU summarized and presented in your book. My recollection is that "60 degrees to the left and right of center" showed up in two different places in your book. Anyway THAT information alone was well worth the price of admission to me.

Upmixing stereo to multichannel is a lottery... useful for certain kinds of music.

Pardon my ignorance, but what would make upmixing (done well) not useful for certain kinds of music? Would it be the generation of unnatural sounds, and if so, can that be mitigated by making adjustments rather than turning it off?

It can easily be turned off, so it is an option to embellishing stereo that does not force one into choosing loudspeakers that are always in the delivery path, and frankly, are less rewarding (my personal opinion - let the flames begin).

Seems to me the ideal would be to extract (or synthesize) and effectively present only decorrelated (or otherwise beneficial) information from multiple optimum directions at optimized levels and delays, perhaps with some apparent-source-width widening information included in the front hemisphere. This has got to be inherently superior to what can be done solely by manipulating radiation patterns, wherein the reflections contain everything (more or less), not just the ambience information.

 

[Mr. Widget]

BUT, as soon as one starts to judge soundstage and imaging the recording becomes part of the evaluation, and recordings exhibit enormous variability. They are created in control rooms by recording engineers who add their preferences and judgments to the final artistic product, while listening to their loudspeakers in their control rooms, not yours. These days a high percentage of monitoring is done in the direct sound field, either by using close (near-field) listening or by listening in acoustically dead, reflection-controlled rooms. So, what is heard during the creation of the art may be very different from the playback conditions in homes (or earphones).

So, wouldn't it make sense for us to try to duplicate this environment for our playback systems?

 

[Floyd Toole]

So, wouldn't it make sense for us to try to duplicate this environment for our playback systems?

It is definitely an option, and some high-end home theaters do it. There it makes little difference in multichannel or immersive systems with direct sounds arriving from many angles to create a sense of envelopment. For stereo playback such direct-sound dominant listening has been found desirable for mixing, it seems, allowing the recording engineers to more clearly hear the manipulations they apply to the signals. Experiments have been done which show that engineers adapt quickly and can perform comparably well with some reflections, but "tradition" is hard to change.

The downside of dominant direct-sound listening is that the inter-aural crosstalk (comb filtering) problems of stereo are starkly revealed without any room reflections to fill in the gaps. There is also the possible motivation provided by hearing loss, which is an occupational hazard of pro audio people - removing reflections reduces confusion. Many of us older people experience such problems in the complex sound fields of restaurants.

Whatever the justifications on the professional side, the evidence is that with well designed loudspeakers some room reflections are beneficial for many (most?) consumers.

 

[Mr. Widget]

Whatever the justifications on the professional side, the evidence is that with well designed loudspeakers some room reflections are beneficial for many (most?) consumers.

Question: when you say, the evidence is that well designed loudspeakers benefit from some reflections for many or most consumers, how is the benefit determined? Carefully measured subjective preference?

 

[RexrothPigeon]

ouch.

I mean, I'm not young either, but it blows my mind how every time I peer behind a curtain in the aUiDiOpHiLe industry it turns out that the golden eared wizard's just a grandpa whose ears definitely ain't workin like that, even if in some bygone decade they might have. high end audio seems to be little more than old dudes selling stuff to other old dudes like some kind of geriatric shell game.

 

[fpitas]

I mean, I'm not young either, but it blows my mind how every time I peer behind a curtain in the aUiDiOpHiLe industry it turns out that the golden eared wizard's just a grandpa whose ears definitely ain't workin like that, even if in some bygone decade they might have. high end audio seems to be little more than old dudes selling stuff to other old dudes like some kind of geriatric shell game.

The old dudes have the money and are willing to spend it on audiophile hokum.

 

[Floyd Toole]

Question: when you say, the evidence is that well designed loudspeakers benefit from some reflections for many or most consumers, how is the benefit determined? Carefully measured subjective preference?

If you read my books or have followed the published research, it will be seen that in the "bad old days" the first measured evidence of high sound quality ratings was smooth and flat on-axis, direct sound, performance. Later it was seen that loudspeakers with well-behaved off axis response and wide dispersion rated even higher. Consequently, our subjective evaluations always used rooms with strong lateral reflections - a worst-case scenario, forcing good engineering to get high subjective scores.

Now, as can be seen in Amir's and Erin's spinorama measurements and anechoic data from Soundstage and others, increasing numbers of loudspeakers follow the guidance. Look for a smooth directivity index, and decide how wide a dispersion you think you want.

 

[suttondesign]

Having used and enjoyed dipoles (Linkwitz), monopoles (many), and cardiods (Dutch 8c), I can state firmly that the dipoles, which leverage room interaction and reflections, were my favorite by a long-shot. But, as Mr. Toole notes, as we get older, that kind of soundfield creates problems, as well. In my case, the mains are also the TV speakers, and dialog was getting difficult to discern. So I experimented first with a small DIY monopole speaker from Heissmann, which solved the problem, and that convinced me to try the AudioFirst Cadentia, an extremely similar design but on a larger scale.

I still have the Linkwitz 521.4's, but they're mothballed for now. So with the Cadentia 3 I can enjoy movies by hearing what people say, but I also get to enjoy traditional stereo with very low distortion, smooth response, and very high output, even if the beguiling soundfield of the dipoles is missing.

As for the Dutch and the Genelec Ones, the problem for me is the expense. The Cadentia kit was $3500, an unbelievable bargain for what they do. Even the Heissman DXT-Mon-182, for about half that amount again, would be fully acceptable for mains if supplemented with subs. I contrast that with, say, Aerial Acoustics, or Celestions, or B&W 800-series, a number of which I had over the years. All were fine, but none were exceptional; the B&W were just strange, never made me happy in the sense of sounding natural.

My point being, much in agreement with Toole, well-designed and engineered speakers of all types are very pleasurable, but one's unique needs may dictate one or the other types and lead one to compromise on one goal or another. I think everyone is safe buying the speakers we here at ASR all recognize as well-designed, whether pretty or not.

 

[Mr. Widget]

If you read my books or have followed the published research, it will be seen that in the "bad old days" the first measured evidence of high sound quality ratings was smooth and flat on-axis, direct sound, performance. Later it was seen that loudspeakers with well-behaved off axis response and wide dispersion rated even higher. Consequently, our subjective evaluations always used rooms with strong lateral reflections - a worst-case scenario, forcing good engineering to get high subjective scores.

Now, as can be seen in Amir's and Erin's spinorama measurements and anechoic data from Soundstage and others, increasing numbers of loudspeakers follow the guidance. Look for a smooth directivity index, and decide how wide a dispersion you think you want.

Actually I heard one of your presentations at Harman about 20 years ago when I was first made aware of your findings about the importance of off axis performance. When I first heard about it, it was kind of mind blowing.

I understand the basics and appreciate the importance of your studies and how the entire industry has benefited... my question which I believe you answered is that ultimately, through well controlled studies the ultimate "quality" is determined by subjective responses. Calibrated subjective responses perhaps, but still it is about the human reaction to reproduction.

 

[Floyd Toole]

Having used and enjoyed dipoles (Linkwitz), monopoles (many), and cardiods (Dutch 8c), I can state firmly that the dipoles, which leverage room interaction and reflections, were my favorite by a long-shot. But, as Mr. Toole notes, as we get older, that kind of soundfield creates problems, as well. In my case, the mains are also the TV speakers, and dialog was getting difficult to discern. So I experimented first with a small DIY monopole speaker from Heissmann, which solved the problem, and that convinced me to try the AudioFirst Cadentia, an extremely similar design but on a larger scale.

I still have the Linkwitz 521.4's, but they're mothballed for now. So with the Cadentia 3 I can enjoy movies by hearing what people say, but I also get to enjoy traditional stereo with very low distortion, smooth response, and very high output, even if the beguiling soundfield of the dipoles is missing.

As for the Dutch and the Genelec Ones, the problem for me is the expense. The Cadentia kit was $3500, an unbelievable bargain for what they do. Even the Heissman DXT-Mon-182, for about half that amount again, would be fully acceptable for mains if supplemented with subs. I contrast that with, say, Aerial Acoustics, or Celestions, or B&W 800-series, a number of which I had over the years. All were fine, but none were exceptional; the B&W were just strange, never made me happy in the sense of sounding natural.

My point being, much in agreement with Toole, well-designed and engineered speakers of all types are very pleasurable, but one's unique needs may dictate one or the other types and lead one to compromise on one goal or another. I think everyone is safe buying the speakers we here at ASR all recognize as well-designed, whether pretty or not.

Sigfried Linkwitz was a friend of mine, and a respected audio colleague. He designed his loudspeakers to satisfy his classical music biased listening habit in his specific listening room. I heard his loudspeakers in his room, and they sounded just fine. Taking this or any other custom design into a different listening space, or judging it using different program material cannot result in certain results. But you are right about dipoles generating more complicated sound fields than forward firing designs.

You said B&W 800 series loudspeakers "were just strange". In my books you will see anechoic spinorama evidence of why. They are not neutral loudspeakers but marketing and enthusiasts have turned it into a kind of icon. The company was recently purchased by my old employer, Harman, and it will be interesting to see if anything changes. I suspect not, so long as sales continue.

 

[Floyd Toole]

Actually I heard one of your presentations at Harman about 20 years ago when I was first made aware of your findings about the importance of off axis performance. When I first heard about it, it was kind of mind blowing.

I understand the basics and appreciate the importance of your studies and how the entire industry has benefited... my question which I believe you answered is that ultimately, through well controlled studies the ultimate "quality" is determined by subjective responses. Calibrated subjective responses perhaps, but still it is about the human reaction to reproduction.

Yes indeed. A loudspeaker isn't good until it sounds good. Accurate acoustical measurements were around long before we understood how to interpret them in a way that related to subjective opinions. The weak link was obtaining reliable, repeatable subjective opinions. Once that was done, the rest was straightforward.

It is explained in a simplified way in the downloadable slide show: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...is-coming-discount.63666/page-13#post-2579817

 

[Newman]

So, wouldn't it make sense for us to try to duplicate this [dampened, studio monitoring] environment for our playback systems?

It is definitely an option, and some high-end home theaters do it. There it makes little difference in multichannel or immersive systems with direct sounds arriving from many angles to create a sense of envelopment. For stereo playback such direct-sound dominant listening has been found desirable for mixing, it seems, allowing the recording engineers to more clearly hear the manipulations they apply to the signals. Experiments have been done which show that engineers adapt quickly and can perform comparably well with some reflections, but "tradition" is hard to change.

IIRC your book also describes evidence that sound engineers are generically far more sensitive to reverb than the general populace, as much as 5x or 7x. (Perhaps a training effect).

So they are probably satisfied when putting a level of reverb into the final product that the home listener would find less satisfying.

In fact, one could argue that the home listener, listening in a more reverberant space than the studio, subjectively experiences a level of reverb more akin to what the studio engineer subjectively experiences, and intended for us to experience.

The downside of dominant direct-sound listening is that the inter-aural crosstalk (comb filtering) problems of stereo are starkly revealed without any room reflections to fill in the gaps. There is also the possible motivation provided by hearing loss, which is an occupational hazard of pro audio people - removing reflections reduces confusion. Many of us older people experience such problems in the complex sound fields of restaurants.

Whatever the justifications on the professional side, the evidence is that with well designed loudspeakers some room reflections are beneficial for many (most?) consumers.

...which would be consistent with my logic above.

cheers

 

[Satanica]

Add to these significant uncertainties the basic fact that stereo is a directionally and spatially compromised format - fact not opinion.

In relative terms or absolute?
Regardless, mono is spatially compromised to stereo and stereo is spatially compromised to quad, etc?

Upmixing stereo to multichannel is a lottery. When it works, it can be - in my opinion - a tasteful embellishment of the sense of envelopment, of being in a large space. But that requires the right up mixer combined with the right recording, both meeting the expectations of the listener and the program being auditioned. In my experience, a good upmixer (e.g. the long gone Lexicon algorithm) that does not destroy the soundstage while delivering delayed surround information to loudspeakers to the side (even 60 degrees to the side is enough) was rewarding. Now, it is a greater challenge, but by keeping the upmixed information at a low, background, level, it is still useful for certain kinds of music. It can easily be turned off, so it is an option to embellishing stereo that does not force one into choosing loudspeakers that are always in the delivery path, and frankly, are less rewarding (my personal opinion - let the flames begin ).

This is the first I've read based on your research that "stereo to multichannel is a lottery" rather than than what seems to be implied by some that "stereo to multichannel is a given". Also, I'm quite surprised to read from you "But that requires the right up mixer combined with the right recording.". I have no problem if this is opinion based and it's consistent with the "lottery" of upmixing.

As I type this I'm expermenting with upmixing and I think I have really good tools for this. Using the JRiver MC upmixer it does not change the Left and Right speakers and just adds (with delay) to Rear Left and Rear Right surrounds (in my setup). JRiver seems to have a similar upmixing algorithm to Lexicon (which is quite often prasied). Out of the box, I don't prefer it, but with the surrounds attenuated by 40db (yes you read that right) I think i can hear overall advantages, but time will tell if I stick to it. Anyone can make of that what they will. JRiver MC is a great tool for comparisons, because it faciltates very fast switching of DSP, so in this example the upmixed surrounds can be switched on/off with very little delay, blind testing?

 

[bmc0]

with the surrounds attenuated by 40db (yes you read that right) I think i can hear overall advantages

I'd be surprised if you could reliably hear any difference with music in a blind test, assuming typical delay settings of ~10-30ms. Even in an anechoic chamber, -40dB is well below the detection threshold according to the experimental data I've seen.