May I ask why a wide dispersion speaker is preferred?

[richard12511]

In general, the conflict is soundstage/spaciousness vs imaging. Wide = spaciousness. Narrow = imaging. Wide directivity leads to strongly correlated early reflections that confuse imaging. Narrow directivity improves imaging at the expense of spaciousness.

Pretty much. I've come to realize that you can't have the best of both. You can't have the best imaging, and also have the best spaciousness. You can have a system that's pretty good at both, or you can have a system that specializes in one or the other.

My plan now is to have multiple systems with different dispersion widths.

 

[frangle]

Linkwitz's description of the issue is quite clear here.
There is also a helpful discussion of the topic in the D&D 8C manual here that is consistent.

I didn't see much discussion of the impact of recordings in the thread. As with other factors, the emphasis a speaker / room configuration provides through high or low directivity, toe-in, boundary proximity, room treatments, etc may work well with one recorded sound stage and not with another.

 

[RayDunzl]

I didn't see much discussion of the impact of recordings in the thread. As with other factors, the emphasis a speaker / room configuration provides through high or low directivity, toe-in, boundary proximity, room treatments, etc may work well with one recorded sound stage and not with another.

I have narrow and wide dispersion speakers switchable from the same DAC and preamp.

I haven't found the recording to be a factor in deciding which speakers I would pick to listen if listening "critically".

 

[dasdoing]

In general, the conflict is soundstage/spaciousness vs imaging. Wide = spaciousness. Narrow = imaging. Wide directivity leads to strongly correlated early reflections that confuse imaging. Narrow directivity improves imaging at the expense of spaciousness.

you can have both with narrow by widening the stereo triangle.
it is basicly the same what happens with strong early reflections. if you have reflections coming from 60cm of the side from the speaker, your "phantom speaker" will be right in the middle. just put your narrow speaker there and you have the same wideness.
when I started treating my rooms I used to widen the stereo triangle. but over the time I went back to equilateral triangle as I started hearing mostly the ambience in the recording. now when I move my head forward it just sounds wrong to me. it sounds more like 3 speakers then stereo

 

[Chromatischism]

you can have both with narrow by widening the stereo triangle.
it is basicly the same what happens with strong early reflections. if you have reflections coming from 60cm of the side from the speaker, your "phantom speaker" will be right in the middle. just put your narrow speaker there and you have the same wideness.
when I started treating my rooms I used to widen the stereo triangle. but over the time I went back to equilateral triangle as I started hearing mostly the ambience in the recording. now when I move my head forward it just sounds wrong to me. it sounds more like 3 speakers then stereo

I see most people advocating for the equilateral triangle, with another portion saying to start there, but to increase the distance to the speakers slightly more than their width apart. I've had both and enjoyed both. In my small room though, the equilateral approach is almost near-field, maybe I'd call it mid-field, so it is insulating me slightly more from early reflections (my ears are getting a high SNR). It's less friendly if you have someone over because only one person is going to get the goods while the other gets a speaker right in front of them.

 

[frangle]

I haven't found the recording to be a factor in deciding which speakers I would pick to listen if listening "critically".

A high percentage of what gets discussed on this forum are things that are hard to notice in isolation or outweighed by practical considerations. I wouldn't adapt my configuration for this either.
Because most of my listening is classical, I want room reflections to be uncorrelated for better brain rejection to better appreciate the acoustic of recording venue. For other types of (particularly non-acoustic) music, maybe correlated reflections can add something: it is an artificial sound anyway so there is no right answer.

 

[Duke]

if you have reflections coming from 60cm of the side from the speaker, your "phantom speaker" will be right in the middle. just put your narrow speaker there and you have the same wideness.

I agree with you in principle but have the urge to minor-quibble about one of the specifics:

My understanding is that the location of the "phantom speaker" in this case would be 60 cm beyond the wall, not between the wall and the real speaker. Scroll down to the third image at this link:

https://realtraps.com/art_room-setup.htm

So the implication is that the midpoint between the real speaker and the phantom speaker would be AT the wall, IF it matched the direct sound in strength. Which it does not (unless the speaker is omnidirectional and the wall is 100% reflective), so imo the "effective midpoint" IS in between the real speaker and the wall... and you may even be right about its typical location (midway between speaker and wall).

 

[Duke]

I've come to realize that you can't have the best of both. You can't have the best imaging, and also have the best spaciousness.

That's my understanding as well, assuming "best spaciousness" includes "best soundstage width" (enhanced by early sidewall reflections).

You can have a system that's pretty good at both, or you can have a system that specializes in one or the other.

My plan now is to have multiple systems with different dispersion widths.

Imo there is another general radiation pattern type which may be worth considering: Polydirectional, which includes dipole, bipole, omnidirectional, quasi-omni, and others.

What polydirectionals have in common is this: A significant amount of the energy is initially directed away from the listening area, such that we have a longer time delay before those reflections arrive at the listening area.

By manipulating pattern shapes and room interactions (toed-in narrow-pattern dipoles come to mind), imo it is theoretically possible to have the relatively reflection-free early sound of a narrow-pattern speaker along with the greater sense of envelopment from a well-energized reverberant field, the latter being a generally characteristic of wide-pattern speakers. BUT we would still be lacking the enhanced soundstage width from early sidewall reflections (can't have early reflections and freedom from early reflections at the same time). Imo one imperfect way to address this issue is to increase the width of the listening triangle.

This is of course a compromise but imo is theoretically an alternative to narrow pattern vs wide pattern monopole loudspeakers.

 

[MattHooper]

A high percentage of what gets discussed on this forum are things that are hard to notice in isolation or outweighed by practical considerations. I wouldn't adapt my configuration for this either.
Because most of my listening is classical, I want room reflections to be uncorrelated for better brain rejection to better appreciate the acoustic of recording venue. For other types of (particularly non-acoustic) music, maybe correlated reflections can add something: it is an artificial sound anyway so there is no right answer.

I like classical music and also love soundtrack music. For orchestral music I like being able to dial in the amount of room reflection for the upper frequencies. My room is well controlled for reflections, but I can vary this with some thick velvet curtains on tracks that span the length of my side walls. So I can bunch those curtains up at any sidewall point, spread them out or whatever. As well, the main wall behind my speakers is a giant projection screen that uses automated velvet 4-way masking. Essentially, with remote control, I can make that back wall as reflective or non-reflective as I want - entirely close the system covering the whole wall with absorptive velvet, or open it up to any size with reflective screen material, which increases the liveness of the room.

For classical, if I have a more "dead" room I hear a very accurate representation of the acoustic properties within the recording. There is a sense in a sort of "portal" between the speakers looking in to a different acoustic space. But carefully dialing in a bit more room reflection I find I hit the point where the acoustic signature of the recording still predominates it's character, but the top frequencies become more "airy" and spread out, so now it melds with the acoustics of the room I'm in. With the right balance, this simply makes it sound like the acoustic of the recording has expanded more to life size, and with eyes closed, the recording doesn't feel "canned" but sounds like I'm now in the same hall as the recording.

On good recordings it takes very little effort to sink in to the illusion of listening to a real orchestra. (Where of course my brain is being forgiving of the shortcomings relative to the real thing).

 

[Duke]

... carefully dialing in a bit more room reflection I find I hit the point where the acoustic signature of the recording still predominates it's character... With the right balance, this simply makes it sound like the acoustic of the recording has expanded more to life size, and with eyes closed, the recording doesn't feel "canned" but sounds like I'm now in the same hall as the recording.

This makes sense to me. There does indeed seem to be a "sweet spot" as far as the relative levels of direct and reflected sound, where the venue cues on the recording can dominate over the "small room signature" cues of the playback room, without clarity being degraded. I think the arrival times of the reflections also play a role.

 

[MattHooper]

This makes sense to me. There does indeed seem to be a "sweet spot" as far as the relative levels of direct and reflected sound, where the venue cues on the recording can dominate over the "small room signature" cues of the playback room, without clarity being degraded. I think the arrival times of the reflections also play a role.

There's also an interesting effect that starts to happen when I make this relatively small room "too live." In an orchestral recording when the original large acoustic captured (or added) in the recording predominates, it gives depth cues so, say, the string section on the left sounds appropriately far away. In other words, the impression is of a large sound source - string section - but at a distance from the listener as in a hall.

But make the smaller room too live and when the small room acoustics dominate it starts to overwhelm those distance cues and "dry up" the acoustic of the recording. The effect can be the sensation of the orchestra playing "in the room" but of course the image sizes aren't really made larger, so the end effect without the depth cues can make it sound like a minaturized toy-size orchestra has been moved in to my room, rather than it being a full sized orchestra heard at a distance in hall. Hence...careful balancing of room acoustics. I'd think these effects change given larger rooms etc.

I bit like when you lose the depth cues of stereoscopic vision.

 

[Chromatischism]

It sounds like we're trying to modify the recording because we aren't satisfied with the way it was recorded. Plenty of ambience, don't want my room's reflections added. Not enough of the hall, need to add my own. Etc.

 

[MattHooper]

It sounds like we're trying to modify the recording because we aren't satisfied with the way it was recorded. Plenty of ambience, don't want my room's reflections added. Not enough of the hall, need to add my own. Etc.

It's simply acknowledging the facts that room reflections have certain effects on the sound, which may be pleasant, or suit some people's goal.
And of course the effects will be somewhat different given people's different rooms/speakers/speaker-listener positions. In many recordings there certainly is tons of ambience in the recording. As I said, in my room, adding a bit more room reflections can make the sound feel less "recorded" and a bit more "real" like being there.

 

[Chromatischism]

Maybe that is why people advocate for multichannel recordings so that the correct amount of surround ambience can be in the recording and spectrally correct, avoiding the room influence.

 

[temps]

Maybe that is why people advocate for multichannel recordings so that the correct amount of surround ambience can be in the recording and spectrally correct, avoiding the room influence.

bingo. It's too bad surround mixing is still such a small niche - the few really great 5.1 mixes I've heard are very, very nice and involving.

As far as the "room sound," I think it's currently regarded as matter of opinion when it shouldn't be. You shouldn't be adding any color to the source material - period, especially not reverb. From a mixing perspective, having a lively listening room is like having a fixed long tail reverb on your master bus. It simply isn't done. There may be some material that warrants it, but certainly not ALL material. Even then, your room is most likely not a desirable sound. I've never seen a impulse reverb labeled "drywalled basement with leather couch & shag carpet."

A listening room should be direct sound dominated as much as possible. Even though this site expresses a strong preference for broad directivity, the quickest way to a "good stereo" is to get very narrow beaming speakers and put them in a space with rear wall treatment, which in a lot of cases can just be a homemade diffuser - just a bookshelf or two loaded up with knick knacks. You'll have a sweet spot which is only one person wide (two if you cuddle) but that probably covers a lot of use cases.

 

[MattHooper]

Maybe that is why people advocate for multichannel recordings so that the correct amount of surround ambience can be in the recording and spectrally correct, avoiding the room influence.

Yes that makes some theoretical sense, and I have a surround set up too which I can enjoy.

Nonetheless, I still find that recorded music, orchestral included, has a sort of "canned" quality - the orchestra sounds like a recording as does the reverb/ambiance in the recording. So I'm conscious of it all being a recording. And really good surround has sounded like being in a really good recording. It's when I engage a bit of the reflections of the real room I'm sitting in that the sound seems to open up more and meld with "real life" in a way that feels more believable. YMMV of course.

 

[MattHooper]

I think it's currently regarded as matter of opinion when it shouldn't be. You shouldn't be adding any color to the source material - period, especially not reverb. From a mixing perspective, having a lively listening room is like having a fixed long tail reverb on your master bus. It simply isn't done. There may be some material that warrants it, but certainly not ALL material. Even then, your room is most likely not a desirable sound. I've never seen a impulse reverb labeled "drywalled basement with leather couch & shag carpet."

A listening room should be direct sound dominated as much as possible. Even though this site expresses a strong preference for broad directivity, the quickest way to a "good stereo" is to get very narrow beaming speakers and put them in a space with rear wall treatment, which in a lot of cases can just be a homemade diffuser - just a bookshelf or two loaded up with knick knacks. You'll have a sweet spot which is only one person wide (two if you cuddle) but that probably covers a lot of use cases.

"Should" is a value statement, and individuals can value different things.

I get that you have a strong preference for hearing as much direct sound as possible.

But your argument also reminds me of the types of arguments made against tube amps that can slightly color the sound, as if there was some dictum written in the fabric of the universe "One Must Practice Perfect Fidelity Only To The Recorded Signal." As I've said of my tube amps, to the degree they color the sound it is so minute as to be utterly swamped by the sound of different recordings. Similarly, to the degree I introduce a bit of room reflection, it's contribution is utterly swamped by the character of different recordings. I hear all the same production choices, including reverb/halls etc, whether I've got a bit of room reflections or not.

 

[Duke]

It sounds like we're trying to modify the recording because we aren't satisfied with the way it was recorded. Plenty of ambience, don't want my room's reflections added. Not enough of the hall, need to add my own. Etc.

Your post brings up something which is arguably a nuanced distinction, but imo worth taking a look at.

When done right, from a PERCEPTUAL standpoint, imo you're NOT adding "adding your room's reflections". Instead, you perceive "more of the recording" and "less of the playback room."

Let's look at Matt Hooper's descriptions, and I'll bold the key phrases:

it sound like the acoustic of the recording has expanded more to life size, and with eyes closed, the recording doesn't feel "canned" but sounds like I'm now in the same hall as the recording.

On good recordings it takes very little effort to sink in to the illusion of listening to a real orchestra.

As I said, in my room, adding a bit more room reflections can make the sound feel less "recorded" and a bit more "real" like being there.

Now does it make sense that adding more of Matt's listening room signature, via increased reflections, would have the effects he described? Nope. The reflection paths in his room are WAY too short to remotely begin to mimic being in a real concert hall. There is no way that the perception of "being there" is an artifact of the acoustic signature of Matt's room.

So, WHERE are these cues coming from? THE RECORDING! They cannot possibly come from the acoustics of Matt's room, unless he has a room the size of a concert hall.

What I think is happening is this: Matt's room is presenting the ambience cues on the recording in a manner which allows them to dominate over the "small room signature" of his listening room.

You see, there is a competition between the venue cues on the recording (whether real or engineered or both) and the playback room's inherent "small room signature" cues. Normally the latter dominate, but if we can minimize them while still effectively presenting the reverberation cues on the recording, the venue cues can dominate, assuming a suitable recording.

Even under the best of two-channel home audio playback conditions the ear will be presented with a poverty of venue cues, so it is not trivial to tip the balance enough that the "threshold" is crossed and we have a "you are there" presentation. It takes some fine-tuning. But when the ear/brain system accepts the recording's venue cues as being the more plausible package of cues, perception shifts into an inevitably imperfect but still immensely enjoyable version of "you are there".

So the imo the IDEAL ROLE of the in-room reflections is this: To be CARRIERS OF THE VENUE CUES on the recording, without drawing attention to their own inherent "small room signature" cues. And apparently when Matt has things dialed-in, his in-room reflections perform that "carrier" role well enough for the presentation to cross that perceptual threshold.

In my opinion.

 

[MattHooper]

Very well described, Duke! Thanks.

 

[Duke]

Very well described, Duke! Thanks.

Thank you.

My perception has been that when the reflections are "done right", you hear MORE spatial variation from one recording to the next, rather than less. It is highly counter-intuitive to think that by adding reflections you hear MORE of the recording and LESS of the playback room, but "done right" ime that's what happens. ("Done wrong", and you can end up with the acoustic signature of the playback room audibly superimposed atop every recording, which may or may not be pleasing, but it's a lot less interesting.)