-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Imaging: coaxial vs. traditional layout
- Thread starter RobL
- Start date
As said, the said recording is extremely overprocessed anyway. The performer was a DJ and producer (wiki), and obviously more into commercial design than into arts as such. Some trick might have worked on his mixing console, but won't feel right on your personal stereo setup. Actually, who cares? I've learned from wiki, that a few recordings of his were a world-wide monetary success. I can't imagine that his music depended on particular specifica of the playback machinery. Even more so, I argue that a lack of a too precise fidelity to the source could have helped a lot ...
ps: still 'imaging', 'soundstage', evelopment', even 'wavefront' etc pp remain utterly undefined. As is any relation to 'scientific' research, logically.
Last edited:
IMO, it is more psycoacoustic than real difference...
For example I had problem with 500XO horn and 18" woofer system. But fine with 4367 which has higher XO
right now i have 8351 and salon 2 in same room, change speaker is one click at DSP, there is tonal difference but vertical imaging stablilty is superb for both...
salon2 is 4way with tight ctc so maybe not a good choice to compair but still...
but long ctc and short listening distance creating large angular difference between units was real stress i agree
For example I had problem with 500XO horn and 18" woofer system. But fine with 4367 which has higher XO
right now i have 8351 and salon 2 in same room, change speaker is one click at DSP, there is tonal difference but vertical imaging stablilty is superb for both...
salon2 is 4way with tight ctc so maybe not a good choice to compair but still...
but long ctc and short listening distance creating large angular difference between units was real stress i agree
Pearljam5000
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2020
- Messages
- 5,217
- Likes
- 5,454
It is unfortunate that they do not have better sound. I was afraid of that.No good in contemporary terms regarding true-to-studio fidelity.
The looks, really?
tuga
Major Contributor
I have a feeling that the height of phantom sources results from the listener’s imagination, and likely to vary from listener to listener.
That information is not part of the recording.
If it varies between different speakers it may have to do with vertical dispersion characteristics and could be perhaps classified as a form of distortion.
It’s probably not “horrible” but definitely more for the look than the sound.
If you are the teashea from CloudyNights, they are not your APO refractors…
Here was the Churchill measurement
Tannoy Churchill loudspeaker Measurements
Sidebar 4: Measurements The humongous Churchill is one of the few high-sensitivity loudspeakers that actually meets its spec: my estimated B-weighted figure was exactly 95dB/2.83V/m. This speaker will go very loud with a single watt of power. Its impedance (fig.1) varied between 5 and 8 ohms...
www.stereophile.com
Which is better than the Klipschorn AK6
Klipsch Klipschorn AK6 loudspeaker Measurements
Sidebar 3: Measurements Because of the Klipschorn AK6's bulkeach weighs 220 lbI drove my test gear the 177 miles to Art's place and measured the speaker sitting on a furniture dolly in his driveway. I used DRA Labs' MLSSA system and a calibrated DPA 4006 microphone to measure the Klipschorn's...
www.stereophile.com
The Tannoy look is distinct, and probably a very pleasant sound, albeit not the most accurate. That said, look at B&W and Klipsch. They are still loved by many.
Still quite rough, there are better offerings. Beauty can be argued, despite the common saying that it cannot be disputed. At least it can be related to a specific mindset.Here was the Churchill measurement
Tannoy Churchill loudspeaker Measurements
Sidebar 4: Measurements The humongous Churchill is one of the few high-sensitivity loudspeakers that actually meets its spec: my estimated B-weighted figure was exactly 95dB/2.83V/m. This speaker will go very loud with a single watt of power. Its impedance (fig.1) varied between 5 and 8 ohms...
Exactly! What our audiophile friends always forget is the amount of additional imagination that has to be invested when listeing to a recording. The stereo effect is something that has to be decoded. Or to say it differently, the directional cues are just a skeleton that the listener has to fill up with real-life experience. In so far it needs interpretation, it is an intellectual effort to hear the stereo. And so it will be very individual what you perceive. Spoiler: it is not the machinery, it is not about the quality of it, it is your personal qualification.
Of course some recordings present a real challenge in this regard. Especially the piece given above as a reference is not easy to decode, because it is blindingly synthetic, lacks musicality in every aspect (sorry, but it is so), that I cannot imagine (sic!) to enjoy to listen to it anyway.
And again, the output of that DJ / producer was a commercial success, which proves the point, that the stereo as an additional effect isn't that important. Or would anyone argue that the general public cares that much about it? If not, the recording was bought for other reasons, whatever they were
Yes, I am the teashea on Cloudy Nights. Good to see you here.It’s probably not “horrible” but definitely more for the look than the sound.
If you are the teashea from CloudyNights, they are not your APO refractors…
Here was the Churchill measurement
Tannoy Churchill loudspeaker Measurements
Sidebar 4: Measurements The humongous Churchill is one of the few high-sensitivity loudspeakers that actually meets its spec: my estimated B-weighted figure was exactly 95dB/2.83V/m. This speaker will go very loud with a single watt of power. Its impedance (fig.1) varied between 5 and 8 ohms...
Which is better than the Klipschorn AK6
Klipsch Klipschorn AK6 loudspeaker Measurements
Sidebar 3: Measurements Because of the Klipschorn AK6's bulkeach weighs 220 lbI drove my test gear the 177 miles to Art's place and measured the speaker sitting on a furniture dolly in his driveway. I used DRA Labs' MLSSA system and a calibrated DPA 4006 microphone to measure the Klipschorn's...
The Tannoy look is distinct, and probably a very pleasant sound, albeit not the most accurate. That said, look at B&W and Klipsch. They are still loved by many.
I wonder if it would be feasible from a business perspective for Tannoy to team up with Genelec to get better technology for their speakers, since it would seem that Tannoy is commited to concentric speaker design. I really do like the cabinets.
It's definitely tough. Presumably they could do some active DSP work and get the Prestige line to measure better, but I do believe there is a signature sound that Tannoy is trying to market/sell. Paul Mills who was the lead engineer at Tannoy started Fyne Audio. They have a line of vintage appearing speakers made in Scottland which should be better than anything that Tannoy is shipping in the same size-class..
Their modern line doesn't measure anywhere as well as the Genelec's / Revel's / JBL's but it seems to be more advanced than Tannoy.
Fyne Audio F1-10 Review
A Fyne Pleasure – After Tannoy's change of ownership, the manufacturer Fyne Audio sees itself in an obligation to continue Scottish tradition – as for example with the Fyne Audio F1-10 floorstanding speaker.
FYNE AUDIO F1-5 Review - Fyne Fare « 7Review
High-end bookshelf loudspeakers from Scotland. John Pickford listens to Fyne F1-5s in the lap of luxury. Read our FYNE AUDIO F1-5 Review. SOUND QUALITY CONCLUSION SYSTEM USED MEASURED PERFORMANCE VERDICT Check Amazon It’s hard to look at these compact speakers and not think ‘tiny Tannoy’. You...
7review.com
For appearance, everything is split between resto-modern speakers like the Yamaha NS-5000 and JBL L100 Classic or ultra-modern speakers like KEF, Magico, and Genelec's. Some of the Sonus Faber cabinetry is still very nice.
HRTFs range dependency is one related topic where you can find a lot of research.
There isn't much published research about the vertical size or height of the stereo soundstage directly that I am aware of. There was one paper which researched the size depending on the spl and a positive correlation was found (I couldn't find the paper with a quick search).
A line array produces a bigger soundstage in vertical dimension. You have to hear some different speaker designs and you will notice without a doubt that there are bigger differences according to the design of the speaker. I don't know if this single topic was ever documented in a scientific paper?
If I remember correctly the development of the Constant-Beamwidth Transducer (CBT) Arrays by Don Keele did also solve the problem of a image which is way to big with a none bended line-array.
Constant Beamwidth Transducer (CBT) Speakers
Not sure how many members have CBT speakers, but I know a few have shown interest. Since there have been scattered ongoing discussions, am creating this thread to give it a home. If you are wondering what CBTs are, they are the work of former JBL and Audio Artistry engineer Don Keele. Edit...
www.audiosciencereview.com
Apparent source width is another related topic which might be of interest but I don't know much about it.
Edit: you can try to build a tiny stereo triangle with a coaxial or wideband speaker (listening distance about 30cm) and you will also find that there is a difference in the perception of the vertical size of the soundstage compared to a standard listening distance.
Last edited:
I am actually more into questions regarding people who need hearing aid. Many of those would benefit from spatial discrimination of sound sources as to better participate in social life. The so called 'cocktail party effect' bothers these a lot.
I cannot wrap my head around the notion that the personally entitled audiophile has any right to occupy scientific resources for his (he, a male!) quest for a perfect stereo, that does not exist to begin with. Stereo is bogus by design. It cannot be polished, and any attempt to follow down this rabbit hole only specifies the mindset of the proponent. To quote Blauert doesn't help with my frustration.
Embrace the idea that stereo is just a dispensible add-on to a recording that better tells you something apart from mindlessly auto-generating an image. If you do not have something valuable in your mind already, the stereo effect won't help either.
I'm still suffering from taking note of the contemporary music market. Really?! You want stereo systems that cost an arm and a leg for this!
OP
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2021
- Messages
- 936
- Likes
- 1,562
- Thread Starter
- #55
OK boomer.
Lol j/k
Pearljam5000
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2020
- Messages
- 5,217
- Likes
- 5,454
How is it possible to know which speakers have the more correct soundstage that's closest to the actual recording ?
Let's say the coaxial have a smaller soundstage, and the traditional has a huge one when they're playing the same song.
How is it possible to know what's the correct size of the soundstage on the recording itself?
Sorry for the stupid question.
Becaue i always read that the soundstage is huge on big speakers (Wilson for example)
But it seems a little artificial to me.
Let's say the coaxial have a smaller soundstage, and the traditional has a huge one when they're playing the same song.
How is it possible to know what's the correct size of the soundstage on the recording itself?
Sorry for the stupid question.
Becaue i always read that the soundstage is huge on big speakers (Wilson for example)
But it seems a little artificial to me.
