Have speakers with better impulsresponse a better stereowide? And if so, how do you distinguish between other failures that lead to greater stereowide? Many questions in my mind.
To my mind, it makes more sense to look at the radiation pattern of the speakers. The impulse response view doesn't provide enough obvious difference in information to make any kind of strong assumptions in that context.
I agree with @ernestcarl: the (anechoic) impulse response won't tell you anything about the spatial properties of the speaker.
In terms of radiation pattern, in general, speakers with wider directivity will tend to have the widest stereo image (assuming a reflective listening room).
Psychoacoustically, horizontal reflections, particularly lateral and contraleteral sidewall reflections, are by far the most significant factor in "apparent source width", which is essentially what I think you're calling stereo width.
This implies that a speaker with wide horizontal directivity, placed in a listening room in which sidewall reflections are not absorbed, is likely to produce the the widest soundstage.
Thx! Let me explain. I have a friend that is nearly obsessed by the thinking that speakers with better impulse response give greater stereo wide. I dont know, for me its possible, maybe, maybe not.My personal opinion is exactly what you say. Radiatonpattern and roomreflexions have the biggest influence. But problem for me is how big is the influence of better impulseresponse? Someone did a deeper look?
I don't know of any study linking impulse response (or any time-domain properties) with stereo width specifically, but there's been a lot of research of thresholds at which phase distortion/group delay becomes audible and, generally speaking, most passive speakers (and most active speakers) stay below even the most stringent experimentally derived thresholds for loudspeakers/music.
I can link you to some of these studies if you like?
Oh that would be very nice!!!
Thx!A lot!!Unfortunately, many of these are behind paywalls. You may be able to find freely downloadable versions by googling...
Blauert et al (1978) and Lipschitz et al (1982) are arguably the seminal papers on the topic.
Moller et al (2007) is a more recent investigation, and Liski et al (2018) is the most recent I know of.
A cross-talk cancellation system (XTC - that 'cancels' the sound of the left speaker at the right ear and vice versa) performs better with 'clean' impulse response as opposed to one marred by reflections. By performing better, I mean that the 3d soundstage becomes much better defined. To my simple mind, that suggests that a 'better impulse response' does improve 'stereo-wide'. In my case, that is more to do with the room than the speakers
View attachment 107423View attachment 107429
I just finished an experimentation with linearizing the phase of my KH120s manually using rePhase, and my previous suspicion about the audible effect has been confirmed -- at least it has finally convinced me personally -- increased clarity and additional "brightness" colouration noticeable in mid- and high-frequency transients. The overall effect is subtle, though, for the vast majority of content. But there are certain tracks/types of music content where it's definitely more obvious such as this one: https://www.amazon.com/Re-Foc-Rodrigo-Y-Gabriela/dp/B0000BXBY8
Interestingly, it also had the side-effect of visibly improving the impulse views seen in REW a little bit as well.
However, quite frankly, I am still unconvinced of its effect with regard to stereo-width perception -- perhaps the slight improvement in clarity gives this supposed side 'impression' indirectly. The measurements and width perception I experienced with my KH120s were already quite excellent even well before the time-domain correction -- and my listening tests were done in the nearfield at 0.8 - 1 meter.
If you're interested in a completely isolated test for phase distortion, that's matched in frequency response to hundredths of a dB, please see my post in this thread:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/phase-distortion-abx-testing.18709/
In my experience, the vast majority of differences attributed to phase linearization are actually attributable to magnitude differences.
If you're interested in a completely isolated test for phase distortion, that's matched in frequency response to hundredths of a dB, please see my post in this thread:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/phase-distortion-abx-testing.18709/
In my experience, the vast majority of differences attributed to phase linearization are actually attributable to magnitude differences.
Magnitude is the same in my measurements. It did not change. Nada. Zero.
View attachment 107586
Actually, there is a small difference visible only if you apply FDW.
View attachment 107587
I have to say, based on what we know about the audibility of group delay vs the audibility of amplitude changes, wouldn't you agree that the latter is the far more likely source of the perceived differences in this case?
Also, have you verified using blind ABX or similar that the differences are audible?
Perhaps if it were only isolated at 2kHz. The HF brightness I speak of goes way up in the 'presence' and 'brightness' region of the frequency response.
Sorry, not a blind ABX listening test -- which I know would make a lot of people happy -- I really don't care about convincing anyone else. What I used was jus a simple matter of disabling and enabling of the impulse .wav file convolution or whatever you call it using the space bar key via JRiver.
View attachment 107589