Can't we all just get along?

[abdo123]

Ken Kantor's entire career was based on doing exactly that.

I haven’t looked up what he did but honestly if these same principles are not used in the production of music then it’s just adding more confusion into the cycle of confusion.

 

[Vacceo]

Problem is they both think they are the teacher and the other the student.

They come at things from completely different angles and people likely fall on either side, let's forget who is right for a minute.

It would be interesting and probably good for them to get together, it would be super interesting to see what comes out of it.

Imagine if both are right, amir comes back and says yes I heard depth and separation when we did X and now I know how to show it in the measurements with Y.

The problem I see is that both are not talking about the same thing.

Depth and separation are perceptions of the individual, while distortion is given from the perception of a machine.

 

[Lieglein]

So no, there is no such standard. It is an old practice for the time when we didn't have a fraction of computational abilities we have today. Really for someone to trying to defend such featureless and smoothed response for a speaker is unconscionable. The only thing worse than that is not explaining that this is what he has been doing all along until I came out and pointed it out.

I understand.
Thank you.

 

[antcollinet]

Problem is they both think they are the teacher and the other the student.

They come at things from completely different angles and people likely fall on either side, let's forget who is right for a minute.

It would be interesting and probably good for them to get together, it would be super interesting to see what comes out of it.

Imagine if both are right, amir comes back and says yes I heard depth and separation when we did X and now I know how to show it in the measurements with Y.

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 psychoacoustic effects that take place inside the brain, and cannot therefore be measured.

 

[markus]

As an education professional, I can confirm that learning can only happen when the subject is willing to do so.

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...

 

[markus]

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 psychoacoustic effects that take place inside the brain, and cannot therefore be measured.

But it could be tested in a properly controlled listening test. Many have tried, and there are a lot of puzzle pieces (we know for example what acoustical events affect these perceptions) but none has really completed the puzzle. More (psychoacoustic) research needed. Until then the age old objectivist vs. subjectivist "war" will continue.

 

[Mnyb]

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 psychoacoustic effects that take place inside the brain, and cannot therefore be measured.

I like that , there is no universal measure for "imaging" as it is for FR . Fr is fr whenever or whoever does it (I assume correctly done ).

There is no reason to suspect that imaging going on in the studio monitors are representative either so you cant assume whatever done in the studio as correct either, so there really is no solid ground yet, yes things image differently and most is in the recording or the room some speakers throw large images some pinpoints it more ? but there is no goto reference to say what is correct .

But all the other testing is imho a good proxy , if FR balance is correct and directivity and other factors are also inline with good practice . You also get imaging done pretty well , maybe not not super spectacular in all rooms , but is that "correct" or is even correct something we want ?

I have for the last decades used up mixing to multichannel and that images seamlessly for me , much better than 2 ch solutions .

Speaking of some knowledge does not speakers like B&W actually get that quite spectacular large showroom sounds by actually skewing the correct fr in some way ? so their is probably ways to achieve "extra imaging" at the expense of other things ?

 

[antcollinet]

But it could be tested in a properly controlled listening test. Many have tried, and there are a lot of puzzle pieces (we know for example what acoustical events affect these perceptions) but none has really completed the puzzle. More (psychoacoustic) research needed. Until then the age old objectivist vs. subjectivist "war" will continue.

I'm not sure it can - at least not from a stereo source. Pretty much the only thing that can be engineered in a stereo recording is the amount of each instrument in each speaker - width (between the speakers) if you like. There may be cues in the form of comb filtering effects from reflections, etc, but these are simply interactions between the recording studio and the mics - and can't be controlled.

The rest of it - width beyond the speakers, depth, height - is invented in our brains based on how the soundwaves reach our ears in the listening room. I'd guess more than half the stereo effect we hear comes from interactions between speakers and room rather than stuff actually in the recording. Same speakers/different room - different result. I would also expect (though much research - as you point out - needed) same speakers, same room, different ears, different brain - different result.

 

[NeoZs99]

I would love those speakers measured at Archimago's Musings..That'd be fun

 

[vurbano]

Danny is incredible. Probably takes 3 guys and a crow bar to get that ego in his head through the front door every morning. (sorry) . "You are not qualified to test these." " Come see me and I will teach you how to listen to them." " Only I can review my speakers." "You will believe me all others are simply not smart enough." "You dont know how to use your equipment anyway and your room is not good enough." Gee I suppose if all that is true NO one is Qualified to buy and own his products either. He should just have fun with them himself and stop selling his speakers.

 

[markus]

Somewhere on this site is a description of a test done to allay such complaints of "stress". Participants were given two recordings that differed in some characteristic that I can't remember. The participants could take the recordings home and listen to them at leisure, for as long as they wanted. If I remember correctly, none of the participants returned statistically valid responses.

People don't lose hearing abilities under the stress of unnatural listening conditions. What they lose are cues that let them control choices according to their biases. Jim

Yep, but isn't that what I said? Probably forgot to use the irony icon

 

[markus]

I'm not sure it can - at least not from a stereo source. Pretty much the only thing that can be engineered in a stereo recording is the amount of each instrument in each speaker - width (between the speakers) if you like. There may be cues in the form of comb filtering effects from reflections, etc, but these are simply interactions between the recording studio and the mics - and can't be controlled.

There is a pretty old but still very good basic text by Lipshitz. Highly recommended read.

The rest of it - width beyond the speakers, depth, height - is invented in our brains based on how the soundwaves reach our ears in the listening room. I'd guess more than half the stereo effect we hear comes from interactions between speakers and room rather than stuff actually in the recording. Same speakers/different room - different result. I would also expect (though much research - as you point out - needed) same speakers, same room, different ears, different brain - different result.

Well, that's what controlled listening tests are all about. The whole field of psychoacoustics is based on such controlled listening tests to learn what factors influence perception in which way. Primer: Blauert, "Spatial hearing".

 

[antcollinet]

There is a pretty old but still very good basic text by Lipshitz. Highly recommended read.

Well, that's what controlled listening tests are all about. The whole field of psychoacoustics is based on such controlled listening tests to learn what factors influence perception in which way. Primer: Blauert, "Spatial hearing".

Thanks for the link. I'll try to find time to read it

Blauert on the other hand seems to be unavailable for less than $400 - that I'll have to skip.

 

[Geert]

So more correctly delta dBspl = 20 log 10 spl1/spl2 - so doubling SPL is 6dB

The essence of our disagreement is if you consider a stereo set of speakers to be coherent or incoherent sound sources. For incoherent the formula is 10 log 10, so +3dB. So I agree in practise the result is between 3dB and 6dB, or even lower than 3dB in case of phase cancellation. That's why I never use the theoretical optimum of +6dB.

 

[antcollinet]

The essence of our disagreement is if you consider a stereo set of speakers to be coherent or incoherent sound sources. For incoherent the formula is 10 log 10, so +3dB. So I agree in practise the result is between 3dB and 6dB, or even lower than 3dB in case of phase cancellation. That's why I never use the theoretical optimum of +6dB.

Fair enough.

 

[SIY]

I haven’t looked up what he did but honestly if these same principles are not used in the production of music then it’s just adding more confusion into the cycle of confusion.

I would read his stuff very carefully. His work at AR and later at NHT was groundbreaking.

 

[Pops106]

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 psychoacoustic effects that take place inside the brain, and cannot therefore be measured.

So theoretically...

Assuming FR is measured to be the same.

If I took a 2 way speaker, changed the crossover point or slops from LR2 to LR4 as an example it "could" effectively change the directivity of the speaker as a whole adding or reducing the amount of reflections in the room at certain frequencies and therefore psychoacoustic effect could be seen as the usual bumph "more forward" "airy" etc etc.

 

[Micahk]

So theoretically...

Assuming FR is measured to be the same.

If I took a 2 way speaker, changed the crossover point or slops from LR2 to LR4 as an example it "could" effectively change the directivity of the speaker as a whole adding or reducing the amount of reflections in the room at certain frequencies and therefore psychoacoustic effect could be seen as the usual bumph "more forward" "airy" etc etc.

Yes, by changing the crossover slopes and/or point you are changing the frequencies each driver is playing—which will likely affect the radiation pattern. So even if it does somehow have the same on axis response, the off axis will likely be different. As far as how much that change in radiation will affect imaging, I’m not too sure.

 

[antcollinet]

Yes, by changing the crossover slopes and/or point you are changing the frequencies each driver is playing—which will likely affect the radiation pattern. So even if it does somehow have the same on axis response, the off axis will likely be different. As far as how much that change in radiation will affect imaging, I’m not too sure.

And more than likely - if you just change something without good reason/justification/measurement etc, you'll almost certainly make performance worse.

 

[tomtoo]

So theoretically...

Assuming FR is measured to be the same.

If I took a 2 way speaker, changed the crossover point or slops from LR2 to LR4 as an example it "could" effectively change the directivity of the speaker as a whole adding or reducing the amount of reflections in the room at certain frequencies and therefore psychoacoustic effect could be seen as the usual bumph "more forward" "airy" etc etc.

Exactly, if you change xover points or slope on a multiway, you change directivity. And with that you change spatial effects.

The on axis FR is just one of many.