Ok, but what happens when there's a hard-panned sound that only appears in one speaker? Does the entire design break down and the tonality of these mono sounds in a stereo mix are wildly wrong? If not, then why would placing one of them as designed and listening to it in mono cause such a grave problem?
As I've said again and again, that puts the sound source on the left or on the right. So all the other speakers would have to be placed there as well. The work on mono evaluation was not carried out this way, but rather on speakers in the center.
As long as the other speakers were faced that way and the change in wall reflections because of listener angle didn't handicap the conventional designs, maybe so.
If your list of restrictions is applied it seems to me that we may never know if this loudspeaker is timbrally neutral from double-blind subjective evaluations in mono. Frankly, I don't believe that is so, but there is other evidence. From decades of multiple-loudspeaker mono evaluations we now have confidence in technical measurements and even John Atkinson's somewhat compromised (by his own admission) measurements are enough to tell me that this is likely to be a relatively neutral loudspeaker. This is an important start. What happens in stereo in a listening room is, as it is with any loudspeaker, dependent on assorted room and program interactions, not the least of which are low frequency room resonances, and bass accounts for about 30% of our overall impression of sound quality. The boundary-friendly woofer location ensures that all of the acoustical output is closely coupled to energize certain of the room modes. Adjacent boundary interactions are minimal which is a benefit, which is why I discuss these designs in my books. As long as we listen in small rooms there will be problems.
Just to be clear, this is not MY list of restrictions, these are specifically stated requirements of the design.
I just read the Audio Critic article - a very good magazine, long gone. He puts a lot of importance on interaural cross correlation, which I discuss in my books. It is a technical measure that correlates with perception of LEV (listener envelopment) and image broadening in concert hall contexts. These important perceptions are most effective when the reflected sounds arrive after long delays, much longer and over wider bandwidths than are generated by natural acoustics in small rooms. However, because stereo is so spatially crippled bouncing sound from room boundaries has its benefits - for some listeners, not all. In that interview Kantor gets into this, saying at one point "what we have to let go of is two channels". He is man after my own heart - multichannel wins, and even tasteful upmixing benefits stereo programs. The reflected sounds can be arranged to arrive from the right directions, at the optimum delays and sound levels. The advantage is that it is adjustable, just as the MGC-1 allowed the user to vary the amount and kind of laterally reflected sound. But I digress.
I was first bowled over by multichannel in an Ambisonics demo some decades ago. For many years after, the multichannel I was exposed to was... bleh. But time has marched on and newer multichannel formats are terrific. I currently have a multichannel setup in place and, for material mastered in those formats, I think it's much better than stereo. I wish all new releases took advantage of the superior sound.
So if you listen to the NHT in its prescribed position in the room at the listening position. Then move it out of the way put a three way tower in that same spot and point it at the listener, all while playing the same program/ test signal for a subjective evaluation, how is this not possible? Or what problems do you believe are corrupting the accuracy of that comparison?
YES, This is correct. There definitely needs to be much better standards based on good reliable science when defining parameters for studios, loudspeakers and generally for sound reproduction. Companies like THX and Dolby have helped in regards to this but generally for stereo it's still the Wild West. Where myths, opinions, snake oil and cult of personality often override real science and concrete evidence about what actually is effective. The 'Circle of Confusion' exist at all levels of the recording and playback process.
You apparently don't know what the circle of confusion is.
Probably a silly question but is there a difference (regarding precieved sound character) evaluating 2 speakers in mono than putting 1 speaker in the middle. If so why.
For about the fifteenth time, this puts both speakers on the far left or far right. This is very different than the setup used to establish the claimed superiority of mono evaluation (speaker at the center). There is no evidence that this new setup will be valid- it might be, but there's no data taking "might be" to "is."
Good question. That's missing here quite prominently, the missing piece in the puzzle, the 'why'.
They do not have to be at the center line in order to conduct these tests. You believe the speaker MUST be in the center? This was/is done in most of Harman's testing. But there were and probably always will be special circumstances , like the one you are mentioning, where the speakers must be set up to the left or right for a mono evaluation. Mono does not mean the speaker must be on the 0 degree axis to your head. For stereo the speakers are typically at a 30 degree off center for both the left and right. So this would not be unusual. There were some test that had situations where this was done in order to conduct the tests in order accommodate certain loudspeakers. These test were isolated and not part any of the large studies used in the papers, due to consistency and controls for the larger studies.
That was the experimental condition used to establish the claim. Change the experimental setup and that's new territory.
Floyd Toole's "Circle of Confusion" is a concept that highlights a fundamental problem in the audio industry regarding the consistency and accuracy of sound reproduction.
