This seems to be a veryThe back wave is inverted with respect to the front, and a boundary (wall) sure enough inverts the wave so now it is no longer inverted with the front wave
Last edited:
This seems to be a veryThe back wave is inverted with respect to the front, and a boundary (wall) sure enough inverts the wave so now it is no longer inverted with the front wave
Near field listening and DAW work are different applications than we're talking about here, yes? You're most likely in the professional world with those.Yeah, I dunno about that...
I owned 3 different Martin Logan electrostats for over 10 years. I've since gone back to unipole dynamic speakers.
Dipoles are pretty impractical in certain scenarios, such as near field listening or DAW work.
Also, you have a "circle of confusion" issue in that pretty much zero recording studios use dipoles, so using a dipole is putting you farther away from what the recording engineers heard and mixed for.
Near field listening and DAW work are different applications than we're talking about here, yes? You're most likely in the professional world with those.
The "circle of confusion" issue is an interesting premise though. That home speakers for reproducing should be the same type as those used for recording/mastering studio work is logical, I suppose, but are recordings made in a studio with dozens of channels, pan-potted, added effects, etc, etc, some sort of "reference" that needs to be adhered to? I don't think so.
Dave.
Just to be clear, I didn't say they were better. I said they had less trade-offs.
Also, what guarantee is there the mixing/mastering engineer is trying to recreate the original intent of the artist??
It's very important to realize that the only proper reference is live un-amplified music. If that music is well/faithfully recorded in a venue where the ambient cues are encoded, then a mastering engineer should have a very simple job.
Dave.
It's very important to realize that the only proper reference is live un-amplified music. If that music is well/faithfully recorded in a venue where the ambient cues are encoded, then a mastering engineer should have a very simple job.
Dave.
There are only less trade offs if what you value most is what dipoles are good at.
JIf that music is well/faithfully recorded in a venue where the ambient cues are encoded, then a mastering engineer should have a very simple job.
I'm not going to play silly premise word games with you. I certainly understand your point of view on this. It's one that I've heard for many many years.
Have a good weekend.
Cheers,
Dave.
As for this...
Yes, that's the classic Harry Pearson definition of 'the absolute sound'.
But the logical holes are legion:
1. I can record a purely acoustic event and have it sound different depending upon the microphones I use, each of which have their own sound signatures and radiation patterns. Which one is correctly capturing the un-amplified sound?
2. If I use even a simple set up, 2 stereo mics on elevated stands, what the mics are hearing is not what the audience is hearing. Which is my reference? The mics or the audience? Which seats in the audience?
3. Unless I was physically present at the event, how do I know what it sounded like? I only have the recording.
4. Even if I was present, how do I count for the fading of auditory memory?
5. If I can't fit a grand piano in my listening room, how do I know what a grand piano is supposed to sound like in my room? And a symphony can't fit in my room, so all I'm left with are artistic simulacra that are supposed to invoke the ambience of an event -- none of them can actually reproduce it.
6. What's the proper reference for an electric guitar? A Hammond B3 organ?
7. What's the proper reference for electronic music?
etc etc
Exactly.
Then there is all that twiddle-twaddle, tweak and fiddle with no substantive reference.
However, should 'audiophiles' see this, their raison d'etre evaporates - thus all of that mind-numbing,
'state of denial rhetoric', that infests audio forums with no rational support other than " but I hear it".
Persistent, certainly.This seems to be a very pernicious myth!
Persistent, certainly.
DonH, et al., how would a solid surface convert a wavefront from high pressure to low? Where are all those tightly packed molecules going when they hit the wall?
Persistent, certainly.
DonH, et al., how would a solid surface convert a wavefront from high pressure to low? Where are all those tightly packed molecules going when they hit the wall?
After explaining this, please help me understand the mechanism behind pressure-vessel bass boost below a room's lowest fundamental. Thanks!
I just woke up thinking I'd used the wrong word (I'd been to the pub), but you got there first.Persistent, certainly.
Just to clarify, you are right, the pressure pulse stays with the same polarity after being reflected. However, as the wave travels in the oppposite direction, the particle movements are actually opposite when it comes back. As the original pulse was emitted in opposite directions, a movement sensor located in front of the speakers will record a pulse with the same polarity whether it is the original wave or the reflected one. Difference will be the amplitude (attenuation when reflected) and, of course, time of arrival.This seems to be a veryperniciouspervasive myth!
Spot on again, the dipole emission, unless placed in an anechoic chamber will create a maze of reflected wave, ie producing a reverberation effect, clearly distorting the original signal. Then, as people like harmonics added, some like reverb effects added to the music they listen. Question of taste, I guess.Either way (whether we believe the reflection=inversion myth or not), the assertion is that we can take two transducers, one of which releases only monopole pulses into the room, and one which releases a mixture of positive and delayed inverted pulses into the room, and that both are audibly indistinguishable and both are 'correct'.
Spot on again, the dipole emission, unless placed in an anechoic chamber will create a maze of reflected wave, ie producing a reverberation effect, clearly distorting the original signal. Then, as people like harmonics added, some like reverb effects added to the music they listen. Question of taste, I guess.
Yeah, I dunno about that...
I owned 3 different Martin Logan electrostats for over 10 years. I've since gone back to unipole dynamic speakers.
Dipoles are pretty impractical in certain scenarios, such as near field listening or DAW work.
Also, you have a "circle of confusion" issue in that pretty much zero recording studios use dipoles, so using a dipole is putting you farther away from what the recording engineers heard and mixed for.