omnidirectional loudspeakers = best design available

[Multicore]

By this reckoning, the "best" sound was in fact the "least bad" sound.

My feelings exactly. All I want is for the audio gear to not distract me with its defects. I can enjoy good music on a lot of different systems but some annoy me more than others. I want the speakers to not contribute in any obviously idiosyncratic way.

 

[Els]

The most important aspect of home audio reproduction, is the role of the loudspeaker. Omnidirectional loudspeakers produce the most realistic musical soundstage in the home; however they remain the least understood by the public and audiophools alike. The superiority of the design is easily heard when in person, and when measured, particularly in the off-axis domains both vertically and horizontally. Live music and therefore sound propogation happens omnidirectionally, and is how our ear-brain mechanisms have evolved to understand sound. 98% of loudspeakers are designed incorrectly; yes you read that right and it's easily verifiable w/ measurements. Most loudspeakers beam the sound toward the listener in a totally unnatural way, and suffer what are called 'lobing effects' and again, are easily measured particularly when you start to move off-axis. (marketing department of companies don't measure nor publicize these measurements once out of the sweet spot, because they are horrible). These concepts have been substantially explored by the late Sigfried Linkwitz of Linkwitz Labs; I believe all his research and papers are available at the website. Further explanation is available at the website of Morrison Audio loudspeakers, highly recommended. It is important to note, that there is major distinction between polydirectional speakers, and omnidirectional.

Makers of omnidirectional loudspeakers include:

Ohm Acoustics
German Physiks
MBL
Mirage (out of business; still available used)
Linkwitz Labs (LX Mini is a hybrid omni)
Duevel
Morrison Audio

I would encourage anyone who is serious about music, and wants the most realistic soundstage in their home, to pursue omnidirectional loudspeakers. Contrary to audiphool misunderstanding, they actually excite the listening room LESS than conventional speakers, and require LESS or no special room treatments.

Rules for making a great omni:

-design should be 2-way. Single driver is inadequate; 3-way is unnecessarily complicated
-woofer driver should face UP, with lots of room behind it to reduce or eliminate back wave from radiating back out the cone
-tweeter should also be facing UP
-both woofer and tweeter should be place immediately together, and with dispersion caps or guides to disperse the outgoing sound both vertically and horizontally
-cabinet should be totally inert, as measured by accelerometer
-speaker should be able to be driven using either a passive or active crossover
-inputs should be Neutrik Speakons; Benchmark Media has measured conclusively the lowered distortion of Speakons compared to binding posts (spades or bananas)
-listening height of drivers should be at listener's seated ear level OR LOWER

This considered, the 2 best omni designs, and therefore the 2 best loudspeaker designs in the world right now, are from Duevel in Germany, and Morrison Audio in Canada. All others on the list are "honorable mention".

You could include Karlson (Sonab) speakers to that list.

 

[goat76]

It was absolutely not neutral, exhibiting a massive midrange hump, but engineers thought of it as a facsimile of crappy consumer loudspeakers; an Auratone with some bass.

What I have heard, the reason for the use of the NS-10 in studios was not because it would represent an average of crappy consumer loudspeakers. Instead, the Yamaha speaker was considered to be brutally revealing of problems in the mix, a sort of a “looking glass” into the mix and if the problems could not be heard with the NS-10s, it would probably not been heard in any other speakers no matter the quality, good or bad.

If you think about it this way, why would a speaker that failed to sell to the regular mass market consumers, ever be considered to be representative of the average crappy consumer loudspeakers? It doesn't make sense.

I think this article is a good read. It's a more in-depth story about the popularity of the Yamaha NS-10 in recording studios.

The Yamaha NS10 Story

Love or hate the Yamaha NS10, this unassuming little speaker has found a place in the studios of many of the world's top producers. We trace its history, and investigate why a monitor whose sound has been described as "horrible" became an industry standard.

www.soundonsound.com

 

[Blumlein 88]

Studios do lots of weird things. One I know really rolls off the treble of what is a good monitor. The explanation was working at high levels this protects the mixers hearing. Years of experience meant he could compensate.

Not surprisingly his mixes generally are bright and hyped sounding.

 

[Floyd Toole]

What I have heard, the reason for the use of the NS-10 in studios was not because it would represent an average of crappy consumer loudspeakers. Instead, the Yamaha speaker was considered to be brutally revealing of problems in the mix, a sort of a “looking glass” into the mix and if the problems could not be heard with the NS-10s, it would probably not been heard in any other speakers no matter the quality, good or bad.

If you think about it this way, why would a speaker that failed to sell to the regular mass market consumers, ever be considered to represent the average crappy consumer loudspeaker?

I think this article is a good read. It's a more in-depth story about the popularity of the Yamaha NS-10 in recording studios.

The Yamaha NS10 Story

Love or hate the Yamaha NS10, this unassuming little speaker has found a place in the studios of many of the world's top producers. We trace its history, and investigate why a monitor whose sound has been described as "horrible" became an industry standard.

www.soundonsound.com

I don't wish to argue about "why" the NS10M became popular - I have heard and read several versions, including the one you refer to - and one more from someone who said he was in a position to know, saying that many were given away free to recording engineers. Personally I have no insight except that I have measured and heard the products, and spent time with the designers, who also went through a double-blind evaluation of their own products. They took notes. The products are what they are and the chips will fall where they may.

According to the designer, the NS10M was designed to be used by consumers in relatively reflective rooms, placed close to a wall for bass reinforcement and auditioned at a large distance at which the radiated sound power was assumed to be the dominant factor. It was not designed to be a near-field monitor, placed on the meter bridge in the open (no bass reinforcement) and auditioned at a distance of about 3 ft where the direct sound (on-axis response modified by a console reflection) would be the dominant factor. These are almost diametrically opposite uses.

At the time the Auratone 5C was in widespread use as a loudspeaker representing what many consumers were listening to - mixing for the audience was the notion. It was a simple small cone speaker in widespread use in TVs and elsewhere installed in a small box - absolutely nothing special. Whatever other arguments are put forward, it is hard to ignore the fact that the professional version of the NS10M measured and sounded remarkably like the Auratone, but with more extended bass and much better production quality control. The Auratones were highly variable. See the attached curves, which include a curve of a more recent Yamaha monitor (Figure 12.11 from the 3rd edition - there are more to be seen there). Yamaha clearly walked away from a market for their NS10M Pro and its seeming ability to reveal audible secrets. So, equalize the new one to have the frequency response of the old one when needed - too logical?

There is another school of thought, supported by work and writings of Philip Newell, that claims the advantage to be uncommonly "tight" bass. To all of these perspectives I would add one thought - why not use equalization? In fact, these days does anyone NOT equalize a monitor loudspeaker? Simply start with a broadband, neutral monitor and if one wishes to focus on specific bands of frequencies during a mix dial/switch in the appropriate equalization. Loudspeaker transducers are minimum phase devices so the time-domain performance follows the amplitude-domain (anechoic frequency response) curve. At bass frequencies there is not even a consideration of directivity to be concerned about - EQ is king. Tight bass, loose bass, fat bass, thin bass, all are possible with EQ. In my discussions of such things with several pros I got the kinds of responses typical of many consumers - they really didn't understand how loudspeakers work, but they know what they hear and they have "ideas".

 

[DanielT]

I don't wish to argue about "why" the NS10M became popular - I have heard and read several versions, including the one you refer to - and one more from someone who said he was in a position to know, saying that many were given away free to recording engineers. Personally I have no insight except that I have measured and heard the products, and spent time with the designers, who also went through a double-blind evaluation of their own products. They took notes. The products are what they are and the chips will fall where they may.

According to the designer, the NS10M was designed to be used by consumers in relatively reflective rooms, placed close to a wall for bass reinforcement and auditioned at a large distance at which the radiated sound power was assumed to be the dominant factor. It was not designed to be a near-field monitor, placed on the meter bridge in the open (no bass reinforcement) and auditioned at a distance of about 3 ft where the direct sound (on-axis response modified by a console reflection) would be the dominant factor. These are almost diametrically opposite uses.

At the time the Auratone 5C was in widespread use as a loudspeaker representing what many consumers were listening to - mixing for the audience was the notion. It was a simple small cone speaker in widespread use in TVs and elsewhere installed in a small box - absolutely nothing special. Whatever other arguments are put forward, it is hard to ignore the fact that the professional version of the NS10M measured and sounded remarkably like the Auratone, but with more extended bass and much better production quality control. The Auratones were highly variable. See the attached curves, which include a curve of a more recent Yamaha monitor (Figure 12.11 from the 3rd edition - there are more to be seen there). Yamaha clearly walked away from a market for their NS10M Pro and its seeming ability to reveal audible secrets. So, equalize the new one to have the frequency response of the old one when needed - too logical?

There is another school of thought, supported by work and writings of Philip Newell, that claims the advantage to be uncommonly "tight" bass. To all of these perspectives I would add one thought - why not use equalization? In fact, these days does anyone NOT equalize a monitor loudspeaker? Simply start with a broadband, neutral monitor and if one wishes to focus on specific bands of frequencies during a mix dial/switch in the appropriate equalization. Loudspeaker transducers are minimum phase devices so the time-domain performance follows the amplitude-domain (anechoic frequency response) curve. At bass frequencies there is not even a consideration of directivity to be concerned about - EQ is king. Tight bass, loose bass, fat bass, thin bass, all are possible with EQ. In my discussions of such things with several pros I got the kinds of responses typical of many consumers - they really didn't understand how loudspeakers work, but they know what they hear and they have "ideas".

Hi Dr. Toole.

I take the opportunity to ask now that you are active in this thread. Although the question itself is a bit OT BUT I think many people are curious about what you think, are interested in.

Future studies regarding sound reproduction, what would you think would be interesting to read about? That in regards to new findings, new approaches, studies, investigations, tests and so on. Something that tickles your curious mind?

 

[Thomas_A]

I don't wish to argue about "why" the NS10M became popular - I have heard and read several versions, including the one you refer to - and one more from someone who said he was in a position to know, saying that many were given away free to recording engineers. Personally I have no insight except that I have measured and heard the products, and spent time with the designers, who also went through a double-blind evaluation of their own products. They took notes. The products are what they are and the chips will fall where they may.

According to the designer, the NS10M was designed to be used by consumers in relatively reflective rooms, placed close to a wall for bass reinforcement and auditioned at a large distance at which the radiated sound power was assumed to be the dominant factor. It was not designed to be a near-field monitor, placed on the meter bridge in the open (no bass reinforcement) and auditioned at a distance of about 3 ft where the direct sound (on-axis response modified by a console reflection) would be the dominant factor. These are almost diametrically opposite uses.

At the time the Auratone 5C was in widespread use as a loudspeaker representing what many consumers were listening to - mixing for the audience was the notion. It was a simple small cone speaker in widespread use in TVs and elsewhere installed in a small box - absolutely nothing special. Whatever other arguments are put forward, it is hard to ignore the fact that the professional version of the NS10M measured and sounded remarkably like the Auratone, but with more extended bass and much better production quality control. The Auratones were highly variable. See the attached curves, which include a curve of a more recent Yamaha monitor (Figure 12.11 from the 3rd edition - there are more to be seen there). Yamaha clearly walked away from a market for their NS10M Pro and its seeming ability to reveal audible secrets. So, equalize the new one to have the frequency response of the old one when needed - too logical?

There is another school of thought, supported by work and writings of Philip Newell, that claims the advantage to be uncommonly "tight" bass. To all of these perspectives I would add one thought - why not use equalization? In fact, these days does anyone NOT equalize a monitor loudspeaker? Simply start with a broadband, neutral monitor and if one wishes to focus on specific bands of frequencies during a mix dial/switch in the appropriate equalization. Loudspeaker transducers are minimum phase devices so the time-domain performance follows the amplitude-domain (anechoic frequency response) curve. At bass frequencies there is not even a consideration of directivity to be concerned about - EQ is king. Tight bass, loose bass, fat bass, thin bass, all are possible with EQ. In my discussions of such things with several pros I got the kinds of responses typical of many consumers - they really didn't understand how loudspeakers work, but they know what they hear and they have "ideas".

Interesting that you mentioned ”not designed to be a near-field monitor”. What were the basis for designing a near-field vs. far-field loudspeaker? As you say you will change the DRR when listening near vs. farfield. The question has been up a couple of times; should they be designed differently and how? I don’t think I’ve ever seen an answer.

 

[Floyd Toole]

Figure 12.10 in the 3rd edition (attached) shows what Yamaha should have used as a performance target when designing the NS10M for any - near or far-field application. They were mistaken to aim for flat sound power, especially in a loudspeaker having greatly non-uniform directivity as in the 2-way design. In far field listening the direct sound should be flattish because binaural hearing puts great importance on the first arrival. In near-field monitoring the first arrival is totally dominant. So, as a general rule flattish and smooth on-axis performance is a desirable starting point for any loudspeaker. In the professional situation the proximity of the console work surface is an adjacent-boundary kind of problem that cannot be ignored. Modern studios are doing away with the gigantic "analog" consoles, which opens up the possibility of a more attractive listening situation: mid-field monitoring such as is shown on the cover of my book - more like listening to stereo at home, which seems like a good thing to do. Such a situation allows the use of the highest quality loudspeakers, some of which can damage hearing just as well as those monsters built into soffits and walls.

Incidentally, the technical term "near field" refers to a region in front of a loudspeaker within which it is definitely NOT recommended to listen, as performance is very position sensitive: up, down, forward and back movements change what is measured or heard. Anyone with a measuring system can verify this. Loudspeakers on the meter bridge and bellied up to the console puts the ears in the near field. Sigh . . . So, when anyone says that near-field listening is advantageous, we can smile knowingly, be thankful that humans are remarkably tolerant and adaptable, and leave them with their beliefs.

Another incidental thought: the reference distance of one meter for loudspeaker measurements is historical, but because of the near-field problem, domestic and monitor loudspeakers must be measured in the far field, two meters or more, where the sound field has settled down, and calculated back to what it would be at one meter. Many people mistakenly measure at one meter, which is fine for tiny speakers or individual mid/tweet drivers only. See Figure 10.9 in the 3rd edition.

 

[Floyd Toole]

Hi Dr. Toole.

I take the opportunity to ask now that you are active in this thread. Although the question itself is a bit OT BUT I think many people are curious about what you think, are interested in.

Future studies regarding sound reproduction, what would you think would be interesting to read about? That in regards to new findings, new approaches, studies, investigations, tests and so on. Something that tickles your curious mind?

Got to think about that one. My first reaction is that in terms of delivering excellent sound we are in good shape - if one buys the right loudspeakers. Increasing numbers of basically neutral loudspeakers are in the marketplace, if you can access the guidance to find them. It has become a mature industry.

It is essential to get some control over bass in small rooms. If there are multiple listeners you will need multiple subwoofers - used appropriately! The latter is where slip-ups occur, as I write about in my book. When it is done well, it is impressive. Some "room EQ" schemes can actually degrade good loudspeakers by trying to "fix" inaudible "problems" at middle and high frequencies. This is a significant problem in the industry as everybody feels the need to offer some form of "auto EQ" just to be competitive. Bass accounts for about 30% of our overall sound quality ratings.

I have not followed the detailed competitive machinations of the "Immersive audio" field, although I have a 7.4.6 channel system of my own. I can only imagine that for consumers it is confusing because there is a lack of standardization and compatibility among the Dolby, DTS and Auro3D camps. Much of it is aimed at thrill generating blockbuster movies, not adding credibility to music. That is where the money is. In my own experience listening to some of these programs there is no doubt that there are some nice experiences to be had. The object-based positioning of sound images means that a very high percentage of what is heard is phantom images, not direct radiations from single loudspeakers. Our years of conditioning to stereo degradation now extends to a third spatial dimension. I was invited to an early demonstration of Atmos at a Dolby "reference" facility and one of the demonstrations was of a narrator's voice being panned around the room horizontally. Without Atmos the image jumped from speaker to speaker - not a smooth directional change. With Atmos object based panning the voice was panned between the loudspeakers and at any one time there were multiple speakers radiating sound - the directional change was impressively smooth BUT the sound quality of the voice changed dramatically as it moved. This would be the acoustical interference between and among sounds from the different loudspeakers. It was dreadful to listen to at some locations. When I mentioned it, there were embarrassed coughs in the room and someone said that they had noticed it too, but that most visitors didn't mention it. When some of my colleagues went the following day that demo had mysteriously become "not available".

Fortunately the vast majority of electronics, wires, connectors, stands and audio "jewelry" are insignificant factors in what we hear.

I'll think more on your question . . .

 

[Blumlein 88]

Got to think about that one. My first reaction is that in terms of delivering excellent sound we are in good shape - if one buys the right loudspeakers. Increasing numbers of basically neutral loudspeakers are in the marketplace, if you can access the guidance to find them. It has become a mature industry.

It is essential to get some control over bass in small rooms. If there are multiple listeners you will need multiple subwoofers - used appropriately! The latter is where slip-ups occur, as I write about in my book. When it is done well, it is impressive. Some "room EQ" schemes can actually degrade good loudspeakers by trying to "fix" inaudible "problems" at middle and high frequencies. This is a significant problem in the industry as everybody feels the need to offer some form of "auto EQ" just to be competitive. Bass accounts for about 30% of our overall sound quality ratings.

I have not followed the detailed competitive machinations of the "Immersive audio" field, although I have a 7.4.6 channel system of my own. I can only imagine that for consumers it is confusing because there is a lack of standardization and compatibility among the Dolby, DTS and Auro3D camps. Much of it is aimed at thrill generating blockbuster movies, not adding credibility to music. That is where the money is. In my own experience listening to some of these programs there is no doubt that there are some nice experiences to be had. The object-based positioning of sound images means that a very high percentage of what is heard is phantom images, not direct radiations from single loudspeakers. Our years of conditioning to stereo degradation now extends to a third spatial dimension. I was invited to an early demonstration of Atmos at a Dolby "reference" facility and one of the demonstrations was of a narrator's voice being panned around the room horizontally. Without Atmos the image jumped from speaker to speaker - not a smooth directional change. With Atmos object based panning the voice was panned between the loudspeakers and at any one time there were multiple speakers radiating sound - the directional change was impressively smooth BUT the sound quality of the voice changed dramatically as it moved. This would be the acoustical interference between and among sounds from the different loudspeakers. It was dreadful to listen to at some locations. When I mentioned it, there were embarrassed coughs in the room and someone said that they had noticed it too, but that most visitors didn't mention it. When some of my colleagues went the following day that demo had mysteriously become "not available".

Fortunately the vast majority of electronics, wires, connectors, stands and audio "jewelry" are insignificant factors in what we hear.

I'll think more on your question . . .

I haven't heard Atmos except in a couple of movie theaters. I've wondered about the effect you describe. For a big movie theater, I think 128 distributed speakers that didn't pan, but placed the objects with those speaker ultimately would be prefereable as they are real images not phantom images. Of course you need to pick a low end cuttoff for those. Plus not many home audio setups will have 128 speakers.

 

[Thomas_A]

Figure 12.10 in the 3rd edition (attached) shows what Yamaha should have used as a performance target when designing the NS10M for any - near or far-field application. They were mistaken to aim for flat sound power, especially in a loudspeaker having greatly non-uniform directivity as in the 2-way design. In far field listening the direct sound should be flattish because binaural hearing puts great importance on the first arrival. In near-field monitoring the first arrival is totally dominant. So, as a general rule flattish and smooth on-axis performance is a desirable starting point for any loudspeaker. In the professional situation the proximity of the console work surface is an adjacent-boundary kind of problem that cannot be ignored. Modern studios are doing away with the gigantic "analog" consoles, which opens up the possibility of a more attractive listening situation: mid-field monitoring such as is shown on the cover of my book - more like listening to stereo at home, which seems like a good thing to do. Such a situation allows the use of the highest quality loudspeakers, some of which can damage hearing just as well as those monsters built into soffits and walls.

Incidentally, the technical term "near field" refers to a region in front of a loudspeaker within which it is definitely NOT recommended to listen, as performance is very position sensitive: up, down, forward and back movements change what is measured or heard. Anyone with a measuring system can verify this. Loudspeakers on the meter bridge and bellied up to the console puts the ears in the near field. Sigh . . . So, when anyone says that near-field listening is advantageous, we can smile knowingly, be thankful that humans are remarkably tolerant and adaptable, and leave them with their beliefs.

Another incidental thought: the reference distance of one meter for loudspeaker measurements is historical, but because of the near-field problem, domestic and monitor loudspeakers must be measured in the far field, two meters or more, where the sound field has settled down, and calculated back to what it would be at one meter. Many people mistakenly measure at one meter, which is fine for tiny speakers or individual mid/tweet drivers only. See Figure 10.9 in the 3rd edition.

Thanks for this. Just a follow up; the stereo errors (Shirley et al.), eg the 2 kHz dip is enhanced in anechoic conditions vs reflective environment. Do you think the same is the case for near-field monitors - and if so, should that affect the on- or off-axis ”target” for a near-field vs far-field speaker?

 

[DanielT]

Got to think about that one. My first reaction is that in terms of delivering excellent sound we are in good shape - if one buys the right loudspeakers. Increasing numbers of basically neutral loudspeakers are in the marketplace, if you can access the guidance to find them. It has become a mature industry.

It is essential to get some control over bass in small rooms. If there are multiple listeners you will need multiple subwoofers - used appropriately! The latter is where slip-ups occur, as I write about in my book. When it is done well, it is impressive. Some "room EQ" schemes can actually degrade good loudspeakers by trying to "fix" inaudible "problems" at middle and high frequencies. This is a significant problem in the industry as everybody feels the need to offer some form of "auto EQ" just to be competitive. Bass accounts for about 30% of our overall sound quality ratings.

I have not followed the detailed competitive machinations of the "Immersive audio" field, although I have a 7.4.6 channel system of my own. I can only imagine that for consumers it is confusing because there is a lack of standardization and compatibility among the Dolby, DTS and Auro3D camps. Much of it is aimed at thrill generating blockbuster movies, not adding credibility to music. That is where the money is. In my own experience listening to some of these programs there is no doubt that there are some nice experiences to be had. The object-based positioning of sound images means that a very high percentage of what is heard is phantom images, not direct radiations from single loudspeakers. Our years of conditioning to stereo degradation now extends to a third spatial dimension. I was invited to an early demonstration of Atmos at a Dolby "reference" facility and one of the demonstrations was of a narrator's voice being panned around the room horizontally. Without Atmos the image jumped from speaker to speaker - not a smooth directional change. With Atmos object based panning the voice was panned between the loudspeakers and at any one time there were multiple speakers radiating sound - the directional change was impressively smooth BUT the sound quality of the voice changed dramatically as it moved. This would be the acoustical interference between and among sounds from the different loudspeakers. It was dreadful to listen to at some locations. When I mentioned it, there were embarrassed coughs in the room and someone said that they had noticed it too, but that most visitors didn't mention it. When some of my colleagues went the following day that demo had mysteriously become "not available".

Fortunately the vast majority of electronics, wires, connectors, stands and audio "jewelry" are insignificant factors in what we hear.

I'll think more on your question . . .

Thanks for the reply, that was interesting!

It is essential to get some control over bass in small rooms

I completely agree with that.
Something that I and many others tinker with. Subwoofers, and then also several subwoofers, subwoofer placement, EQ + sub, speaker-subwoofer integration. Threads that address that from different perspectives are, rightfully so, common on ASR.

Then there is the aesthetic aspect of subwoofers. Although it can certainly do wonders for bass to place many large subwoofers / bass modules in the combined listening room, the living room so....well. These large boxes are not particularly beautiful (and they take up a lot of space).
On the contrary, large subs are usually quite ugly, . Thats my opinion anyway. But it's mostly a matter of preference and taste, regarding their looks.

 

[Newman]

They really don’t need to be large…because there are 4.

 

[DanielT]

They really don’t need to be large…because there are 4.

It's a matter of taste what you consider to be big and take up space, not to mention how the subwoofers look. Often ugly black cubes. But okay, we'll leave that aside.

A rule of thumb,as far as I know,for subwoofers, bass modules is otherwise that of these three parameters, you can only have two at the same time:

-Small Volume
-Low Bass
-High sensitivity/easy to power up.

Yes I know, for example what is a small volume? The volume gives the bass box its physical size and thus I end up on the same square again because it is subjective what is perceived as physically large.

Edit:
It might sound like I'm whining, but it's mostly an observation. In addition, for my own part, no major consideration needs to be given to the size or appearance (to a certain extent) of my subwoofers.

 

[audiofooled]

Figure 12.10 in the 3rd edition (attached) shows what Yamaha should have used as a performance target when designing the NS10M for any - near or far-field application. They were mistaken to aim for flat sound power, especially in a loudspeaker having greatly non-uniform directivity as in the 2-way design. In far field listening the direct sound should be flattish because binaural hearing puts great importance on the first arrival. In near-field monitoring the first arrival is totally dominant. So, as a general rule flattish and smooth on-axis performance is a desirable starting point for any loudspeaker. In the professional situation the proximity of the console work surface is an adjacent-boundary kind of problem that cannot be ignored. Modern studios are doing away with the gigantic "analog" consoles, which opens up the possibility of a more attractive listening situation: mid-field monitoring such as is shown on the cover of my book - more like listening to stereo at home, which seems like a good thing to do. Such a situation allows the use of the highest quality loudspeakers, some of which can damage hearing just as well as those monsters built into soffits and walls.

Incidentally, the technical term "near field" refers to a region in front of a loudspeaker within which it is definitely NOT recommended to listen, as performance is very position sensitive: up, down, forward and back movements change what is measured or heard. Anyone with a measuring system can verify this. Loudspeakers on the meter bridge and bellied up to the console puts the ears in the near field. Sigh . . . So, when anyone says that near-field listening is advantageous, we can smile knowingly, be thankful that humans are remarkably tolerant and adaptable, and leave them with their beliefs.

Another incidental thought: the reference distance of one meter for loudspeaker measurements is historical, but because of the near-field problem, domestic and monitor loudspeakers must be measured in the far field, two meters or more, where the sound field has settled down, and calculated back to what it would be at one meter. Many people mistakenly measure at one meter, which is fine for tiny speakers or individual mid/tweet drivers only. See Figure 10.9 in the 3rd edition.

Hi Dr. Toole,

Always a pleasant surprise to see you here. Now that you mentioned it, there's a few things I'd like to ask about near-field vs. far-field and their application in studio and home environment. In order not to get things overly complicated, let us assume that both studio monitors and loudspeakers designed for home reproduction are both fairly neutral and well behaved off axis, just not of the same brand/model. Which is possible nowadays, thanks to your research and resources such as ASR.

Then, in the case of program material being mixed near-field, with early reflections diminished by the application and acoustic treatments in the studio, and the same being reproduced far-field, in a normally reflective room, what is happening?

Artificial ambiance cues which are in the mix, but reproduced at home with early reflections in mind somehow get translated into beneficial for the stereo presentation, imaging, apparent source width, etc. or,

a) One tries to recreate studio environment near-field at home, in order to chase the most accurate reproduction of the essential artistic intention;

b) One uses good headphones;

In any of the case scenarios, in the end, is it all just a subjective matter of personal preference, only because SQ will be high anyway, just different?

To further explain, the thing that bugs me is that I truly prefer far-field reproduction, to me it certainly gives a more natural presentation and a sense of scale.

So, what's your take on this matter?

 

[Multicore]

From the earliest experiments I did, the principal identifier of a "neutral" loudspeaker was its on-axis - direct sound - performance. If the off-axis performance was also smoothly non-resonant the ratings were even higher. The following figure is Figure 13.1 from the 3rd edition. It shows 30 years of progress in engineering resonances out of loudspeakers. Please do not interpret the "idealized room curve" as a "target" for room EQ. It isn't. It is the anticipated room curve from the measured product, in this case well designed ones. It is not an EQ target for flawed loudspeakers - that cannot be reliable. The explanation is in the book.

View attachment 249981

This is especially impressive evidence, isn't it? A validation of the earlier research and theories at a number of levels.

 

[fineMen]

My first reaction is that in terms of delivering excellent sound we are in good shape - if one buys the right loudspeakers. Increasing numbers of basically neutral loudspeakers are in the marketplace, if you can access the guidance to find them. It has become a mature industry.

Good move from especially You and your supporter, the Harman group. It was time to rectify the issues with the circle of confusion, even if the proponent was the arguably most powerful competitor in the market. I've stated some further, more substantial criticism addressing your methodology, but its too scientific to be reiterated here.

It is essential to get some control over bass in small rooms.

Sure enough. Leaving this route for a moment, I still see an open question with the importance of the direct sound with stereo replay. You mentioned that the most preferred speaker were those with a smooth direct sound radiation, but the off-axis response came second, but still it was at least second.

Presumably You refer to mono testing. When listening to stereo we expect the listener to re-create a sense of the spacial distribution of the individual sound sources in the recording, but not the position of the two speakers.

This is only possible as long as the prescribed positioning of speakers and the listener's ears is established. As soon as the listener breaks out, the intended illusion is broken, and the speakers would represent just two less correlated sources of roughly the same content. Would it still be the direct sound from the speakers which determines the timbre? I guess not.

Of course the full stereo image is preferred by many, but, take me as an example, some most often listen from a more conviniant position which renders the concept of 'stereo' an impossible illusion (pun intended). By its very concept even to rotate the head should invalidate all the sound engineer's efforts, and the makings of the mirage should become obvious.

There's still a gap between your findings, as appreciated and necessary they are, and the real life's usage of (stereo) recordings.

Anyway, all the best for the rest of this and the upcoming next year!

 

[oversky]

On topic, indeed.

From the earliest experiments I did, the principal identifier of a "neutral" loudspeaker was its on-axis - direct sound - performance. If the off-axis performance was also smoothly non-resonant the ratings were even higher.

Hi Dr. Toole,

When you talk about “off-axis”, do you mean the horizontal only, or the vertical is of the same importance?
Does coaxial really have advantages over traditional two-way?

 

[LTig]

I was invited to an early demonstration of Atmos at a Dolby "reference" facility and one of the demonstrations was of a narrator's voice being panned around the room horizontally. Without Atmos the image jumped from speaker to speaker - not a smooth directional change. With Atmos object based panning the voice was panned between the loudspeakers and at any one time there were multiple speakers radiating sound - the directional change was impressively smooth BUT the sound quality of the voice changed dramatically as it moved. This would be the acoustical interference between and among sounds from the different loudspeakers. It was dreadful to listen to at some locations.

This is interesting. Have you ever had a chance to demo a wave field synthesis based speaker system? If yes did sound quality suffer as well depending on the listener position?

 

[stevenswall]

For isolated studio booths with total dampening and very close mics, I'm sure Omnidirectional speakers would do better than directional ones in creating natural room reverb.

For normal recordings where there is some ambience mixed in, you're just coloring it now, just like if you built a speaker out of instrument wood and made it resonate while playing cello pieces You now have too much resonance.