eltech Posted September 28, 2016 Share Posted September 28, 2016 Just my opinion (as always), I think any decent speaker is quite capable of soundstage and depth, assuming that such information is on the original recording and the speakers are placed appropriately in the room, and the room acoustics are favorable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eltech Posted September 28, 2016 Share Posted September 28, 2016 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Keith_W said: I didn't say that. What I said is that some speakers are better at conjuring this illusion than others. and that I agree with, and BTW, I was only asking the question, not making an implication. Edited September 28, 2016 by eltech Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legend Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 A couple of random thoughts on the above (not an academic treatise like Toole’s book): The radiation pattern of most dipole speakers is NOT uniform – the only thing that is constant (for geometrical reasons) is that there is cancellation (null) at the exact sides therefore there are no reflections from the side walls – which may or may not be a good/bad thing. At high frequencies their radiation pattern narrows just like a non-dipole speaker as the wavelength of the sound becomes increasingly smaller than the diameter of the driver (due to waves generated at the centre of driver starting to cancel those generated at the driver edges). And at frequencies where the wavelength of the sound becomes increasingly larger that the driver (or baffle) then the waves start to increasingly cancel all around - even at the listening position. However, because they deliberately fire sound backwards, dipole speakers may generate more overall delayed reflected sound and so have increased apparent source width/depth (in Toole’s terms). Whether one likes this or not is a matter of personal preference. To me it a bit like adding too much sugar to everything – nice but everything sounds/tastes much the same. I have similar problems with planar speakers that add reverberation to everything (once their large surface starts moving it is does not stop except by air damping) – or transformer-coupled valve amps that add lots of low order harmonic (euphonic?) distortion to everything. I recently heard Alan Langford ‘s home system that has 4-way (for dispersion) DEQX-active (for accuracy and control) loudspeakers with very low distortion (for detail etc) front-firing drivers on a narrow tapering baffle (for diffraction) and was totally blown away by it (best system I have EVER heard) - including the soundstage that changed with the recording; upfront when recorded as such, placed back when recorded like this etc. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davewantsmoore Posted October 1, 2016 Share Posted October 1, 2016 1 hour ago, legend said: The radiation pattern of most dipole speakers is NOT uniform Yes, that's correct.... if the drivers are used over too wide a bandwidth, and if the baffle does not change shape with frequency .... then it's likely to have a non-uniform pattern. Something like these, are designed TO have a very uniform pattern. http://www.hifikit.se/images/6577/900x600/linkwitz1.jpg http://cnc.trbailey.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/IMGP2967.jpg Designing using a dipole, affords an opportunity to achieve a constant coverage pattern, which a monopole generally cannot. 1 hour ago, legend said: However, because they deliberately fire sound backwards, dipole speakers may generate more overall delayed reflected sound The way most people would take this statement, it is incorrect. Dipoles radiate 4.8dB less overall sound, than a monopole, for the same equivalent on-axis SPL. So inherently they will produce LESS reflected sound.... .... but in practise the dipole and monopole are very different (rear vs side radiation) .... and I suspect you probably intend to mean that the dipole reflection (coming from behind) will have a longer delay. That may or may not be true, it depends on the specifics of the room size, and speaker and listener location. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newman Posted October 1, 2016 Share Posted October 1, 2016 6 hours ago, davewantsmoore said: The way most people would take this statement, it is incorrect. Dipoles radiate 4.8dB less overall sound, than a monopole, for the same equivalent on-axis SPL. So inherently they will produce LESS reflected sound.... That statement is only true for an omnipole, a relatively rare sub-class of monopole. The typical monopole reflects less overall than a dipole taken across the audible band, especially if you take into account the fact that many monopoles can be on- or in-wall, whereas dipoles really need substantial separation from room boundaries, again increasing the delay component. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOMO Posted October 1, 2016 Share Posted October 1, 2016 What about bipoles? I have always wondered how a pair of wide dispersion speakers like dome midranges mounted back to back on a small baffle matched to back to back mounted dome tweeters would sound. Bipoles are the only type of speaker which I have not owned. I have never heard any speaker capable of convincingly reproducing the scale and spread of orchestral music.Probably the most convincing I have heard are the Bose 901s which have some obvious weaknesses too-but I have heard enough to suspect that there is considerable potential in reflected sound I have never heard the MBLs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Listener Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 On 10/1/2016 at 8:59 AM, legend said: I recently heard Alan Langford ‘s home system that has 4-way (for dispersion) DEQX-active (for accuracy and control) loudspeakers with very low distortion (for detail etc) front-firing drivers on a narrow tapering baffle (for diffraction) and was totally blown away by it (best system I have EVER heard) - including the soundstage that changed with the recording; upfront when recorded as such, placed back when recorded like this etc. I too have heard Alan's system and completely agree with Rod. Steven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legend Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 A photo of Alan's home system that he took to the Newport Show 2016 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzlowie Posted October 9, 2016 Share Posted October 9, 2016 "just my opinion (eltech), I think any decent speaker is quite capable of soundstage and depth, assuming that such information is on the original recording and the speakers are placed appropriately in the room, and the room acoustics are favorable"Yes, the information has to be there to start with..... as my audio journey continues I'm enjoying live and simple acoustic music more and more because of the sound stage projected.I find it hard to believe this spacial information can be retained (or even exists) when each instrument and vocal is recorded independently then mixed down into the final recording. It is something special when you do hear a good recording and your room comes alive....Rear facing tweeters, worth a try? Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ooogh Posted October 9, 2016 Share Posted October 9, 2016 A great topic to open Keith W. My appreciation of reproduced music is massively influenced by stage depth. This "acoustic space", "layering" in three dimensional terms is , for me , a non negotiable needed to truly enjoy stereo. I have no doubt that the speaker design plays a large role in this illusion but I feel that this "holographic" staging Is also highly influenced by both amplifier and source choices. My comments are not to underplay the influence of speaker design in this conversation, only to introduce some further influences. As an example in my system my P.S.E. 300B amplifiers produce this illusion in a manner my Cary 805 mono-blocks or Yamaha B-2 v-fet amplifiers simply do not. The simple change of valves of the same value in an amplifier can effect this perception. When enjoying Darthlakers hyper system a fortnight or so ago the move from massively capable digital front end to turntable was like taking the reproduction from standing up at 90 degrees floor to ceiling to laying it down at 180 degrees and running back past the back wall from the speaker plane. The speakers in these examples remained the same in the context of source or amplifiers so must be influenced by the items earlier in the chain. I hope one day to hear a system that nails holographic reproduction at a level I am yet to experience. A combination that can achieve that with-out having to mortgage my soul would be a wonderful thing! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newman Posted October 9, 2016 Share Posted October 9, 2016 (edited) Well there you go: it is nothing to do with speaker dispersion and all to do with introducing stereo crosstalk. Edited October 9, 2016 by Newman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeromelang Posted October 15, 2016 Share Posted October 15, 2016 (edited) 2 things affect image perspective: 1) how a track is cued up and played on an optical player. (the playback design is very susceptible to this issue) 2) the presence of metallic object in/around the speaker will make image perspective more forward and coagulated towards the centre. Edited October 15, 2016 by jeromelang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davewantsmoore Posted October 15, 2016 Share Posted October 15, 2016 On 02/10/2016 at 10:25 AM, THOMO said: What about bipoles? I have always wondered how a pair of wide dispersion speakers like dome midranges mounted back to back on a small baffle matched to back to back mounted dome tweeters would sound. Bipoles = not good. If you wired them as dipoles, that's another story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davewantsmoore Posted October 15, 2016 Share Posted October 15, 2016 On 09/10/2016 at 11:05 AM, nzlowie said: Rear facing tweeters, worth a try? Haphazardly. No.... but you an design a dipole speaker right up to the treble by putting a tweeter front/back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davewantsmoore Posted October 15, 2016 Share Posted October 15, 2016 On 10/10/2016 at 4:10 AM, Newman said: Well there you go: it is nothing to do with speaker dispersion and all to do with introducing stereo crosstalk. How much crosstalk, direct to reflected, etc. that you get ..... is proportinal to the speaker dispersion angle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newman Posted October 15, 2016 Share Posted October 15, 2016 4 hours ago, davewantsmoore said: Bipoles = not good. Hmmm Quote If you wired them as dipoles, that's another story. and Hmmm 3 hours ago, davewantsmoore said: How much crosstalk, direct to reflected, etc. that you get ..... is proportinal to the speaker dispersion angle and Hmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts