omnidirectional loudspeakers = best design available

[gnarly]

Since (IIRC more than one person) has introduced the suggestion to this thread that certain speakers are more suited to certain music types and less to other types, or need 'voicing' per music type, or suit person A but not person B, let me introduce Floyd Toole's published thought on that general principle:-

PS this is a cut/paste of my earlier post in another thread to similar claims making the rounds. People keep making this mistake.

chee

Funny....both you and Newman, funny...

hey, lemme ask you this...
If we basically can tend to agree that Toole's prime set of parameters for good speakers are, flat freq response (with whatever house curve is desired), and smooth DI. ....
Then what the hell separates speakers, one from another....???

In my mind, it is simply different DI curves, different polar radiation patterns... that show up in omni,s vs di-pole, vs constant directivity etc.

And honestly, if you don't think those different radiation patterns have anything to do with how they match up with various types of recordings....
well, good luck with that line of thinking.

 

[Blumlein 88]

FWIW: I used to own VR 4 Gen II speakers. They had an adjustable rear-firing tweeter. It did seem to work in adding spaciousness when turned up. However, I also found it negatively affected the timbral nuance, so I tended to have it dialed down quite a bit. I've seen numerous people having the same reaction to rear-firing tweeters. Not saying they aren't implemented better in newer VR designs, or other speakers.

Snell's with the design seemed to work with rear firing tweeters.

 

[Newman]

Funny....both you and Newman, funny... hey, lemme ask you this...
If we basically can tend to agree that Toole's prime set of parameters for good speakers are, flat freq response (with whatever house curve is desired), and smooth DI. ....
Then what the hell separates speakers, one from another....???
In my mind, it is simply different DI curves, different polar radiation patterns... that show up in omni,s vs di-pole, vs constant directivity etc.
And honestly, if you don't think those different radiation patterns have anything to do with how they match up with various types of recordings....well, good luck with that line of thinking.

Your last sentence can only be sustained if you think that Toole was joking, or hadn't thought it through as much as you.

Good luck with that line of thinking.

 

[gnarly]

Your last sentence can only be sustained if you think that Toole was joking, or hadn't thought it through as much as you.

Good luck with that line of thinking.

He talked extensively about the differences in live unamplified vs live amplified music...
I don't get why you guys can't seem to follow that many of those differences he illuminates, spill into how our speakers respond in a room with their various radiation patterns that match or don't match the production differences he talks about.. ...

 

[Newman]

Again...

 

[dlaloum]

Again...

I sort of agree - on the other hand differences in construction methods, and room sizes, as well as furnishing types in the "average room" - can result in distinct regional/national profiles - and speakers that suit that profile.... so yes stereotypes are a pretty shallow approach - but at the same time, they sometimes contain a kernel of truth

 

[Axo1989]

I like the way each cable looks the part.

 

[gnarly]

Again...

Look, that Personalization fun, which we both know is simply about self-illusion audiophoolery. (which I 100% agree, is phoolery ).

But if you think that Personalization chart extends into mocking DI preferences too,......well, that's what you think.

 

[Axo1989]

Your last sentence can only be sustained if you think that Toole was joking, or hadn't thought it through as much as you.

I'm pretty sure that "personalization" cartoon was meant to be at least a bit funny (albeit too smug for my taste).

 

[Newman]

Lighthearted and "I'm only joking" are not to be conflated.

 

[Axo1989]

Lighthearted and "I'm only joking" are not to be conflated.

cf: "too smug for my taste"

 

[Newman]

The Teacher's Conundrum: ya can't please 'em all.

aka "resistant learners will look for any excuse"

 

[BenB]

The first Stereo recordings weren't such a big hit either. There is much more potential in dedicated multichannel recordings, but that doesn't mean that it has been used to it's fullest potential. Often it is used to "demonstrate" it much like a "gimmick" instead of really capturing the beauty of a performance.
There is no doubt in my mind that it has the potential, but it does require a different environment from the end user (damped room) to use it to it's fullest potential. Not what most people want to do in their living room.

There may be potential in multichannel recordings, but in order to realize that potential, we may first have to figure out what the room requirements are, what the speaker requirements are, and what the recording requirements are. Assuming we figure that out, we then have to convince people that accepting these requirements is in their best interest, even if/when these requirements contradict the requirements of enjoyable stereo listening. That may be too much to ask.
Having said that, I had a friend 3D print microphone holders for a prototype array that might just fit the bill for the recording requirements... unfortunately I have very little time for projects at the moment, and that one is second in my queue. I did make some recordings that I just need to post-process when I get the chance, to see if there's any real promise to the array and my planned processing.

 

[Blumlein 88]

There may be potential in multichannel recordings, but in order to realize that potential, we may first have to figure out what the room requirements are, what the speaker requirements are, and what the recording requirements are. Assuming we figure that out, we then have to convince people that accepting these requirements is in their best interest, even if/when these requirements contradict the requirements of enjoyable stereo listening. That may be too much to ask.
Having said that, I had a friend 3D print microphone holders for a prototype array that might just fit the bill for the recording requirements... unfortunately I have very little time for projects at the moment, and that one is second in my queue. I did make some recordings that I just need to post-process when I get the chance, to see if there's any real promise to the array and my planned processing.

What kind of array are you planning to use, and what is the thinking behind it?

 

[Newman]

@Blumlein 88 I think Ben is into crosstalk cancellation arrays, but he should know better than I!

 

[Wesayso]

let me introduce Floyd Toole's published thought on that general principle:-

A direct quote from Toole's "Sound Reproduction, third edition":

I recall my very early experiments at the National Research Council of Canada (NRCC), where in exploring the
basics of perception I installed heavy sound-absorbing drapes on a track extending down the side walls and behind
the loudspeakers. In uncontrolled experiments with audiophile friends, we decided that absorbing side wall
reflections seemed to flatter some recordings (mostly pop/rock) while leaving the walls reflective flattered others
(mostly classical and jazz). One of them actually set up a similar arrangement in his home and used it as a “spatial”
control.
Conclusion: one size does not fit all. Personal taste, music and the reason for listening are all significant variables.
And, deteriorated hearing, in its many forms, does none of us any favors; it makes us distinctive in ways that we
may never know.

Personally, I'd rather listen to what Dr. David Griesinger has to say about rooms and perception.

 

[Newman]

That Toole quote above was not in reference to choosing one’s speakers to suit one’s music listening tastes, so not on point.

And Toole references Griesinger extensively, so I doubt there are important differences in their views in Griesinger’s specialty subject of spatial effects.

Cheers

 

[gnarly]

Lighthearted and "I'm only joking" are not to be conflated.

That's it?
That's your evidence to counter the fact people have different DI preferences in speakers, and the idea that those preferences can be due to musical tastes?

The Teacher's Conundrum: ya can't please 'em all.

aka "resistant learners will look for any excuse"

I've read a number of your posts where I think you did an excellent job of teaching/aiding the ASR community about Toole's work. Thank you for those.
I've also read a number of your posts where I think you assert your own extrapolated opinions beyond what Toole' says, which turns into preaching/debate.

Ime, Teachers seldom have the Conundrum you describe, when what they teach can be independently verified / repeated....and/or is too logically spot-on to contest.
Preachers on the other hand......

That Toole quote above was not in reference to choosing one’s speakers to suit one’s music listening tastes, so not on point.

Like I said.....turn to debate...

Sorry for all the push-back. Just being fully honest.
(And yes, I do have Toole's book....value it highly...along with a full shelf of other fine audio & acoustic references.)

 

[Newman]

I've also read a number of your posts where I think you assert your own extrapolated opinions beyond what Toole' says

Happy to be shown examples and discuss.

Teachers seldom have the Conundrum you describe, when what they teach can be independently verified / repeated....and/or is too logically spot-on to contest.

I think you missed the point that I was responding to someone saying Toole’s cartoon was “too smug”, so the teacher’s conundrum is about what style to use, eg humour “too smug”, math “too specialised/unintelligible to many”, short and pithy “lacking detail”, vast data presentations “forest for the trees”: the teacher’s choice of style can’t please them all.

Your ‘push-back’ is appreciated, all good.

 

[gnarly]

Happy to be shown examples and discuss.


I think you missed the point that I was responding to someone saying Toole’s cartoon was “too smug”, so the teacher’s conundrum is about what style to use, eg humour “too smug”, math “too specialised/unintelligible to many”, short and pithy “lacking detail”, vast data presentations “forest for the trees”: the teacher’s choice of style can’t please them all.

Your ‘push-back’ is appreciated, all good.

Thank you sir. Yes, I missed the point of the finer detail in that post.
A very nice gentleman's response. I will endeavor to reciprocate in the same manner