Re: The Current Issue of TAS
- Right! There is , however, one other factor:
With most speakers, turning the speaker away from directly
at you reduces the amount of top end in the early arrival.
The sound is literally different in balance.
Now lots of recordings have an un-natural amount of top.
So reducing it might not be bad.
What is really important, however, is to think clearly or so I believe. To describe to others or to yourself the process
of not pointing the speakers at you are creating "soundstage"
obfuscates what is really happening. One ought to say to one;s self
" I turned the speakers away from me to cut down the top end
and bounce some more sound off the walls."
The reason this description is better is that it removes the mystification.
When one makes something involving material objects mystical,
you open yourself up to the possibility of being persuaded to spend a lot of money for a fake reason.
Obviously, there is no reason at all why someone cannot enjoy listening to their stereo with their speakers pointing straight at the side walls if they like that: it is ,after all, their stereo.
But when people try to sell you expensive electronics on the grounds that they "soundstage" better(never trust someone who uses nouns as verbs?), then one's marlarkey meter ought to light up pretty well in my view.
I do not trust effects without causes. Clarity of thought is the key to surivival (financially in this case).
--- In email@example.com, "Ted Rook" <rooknrol@...> wrote:
> I understand it this way:
> Strong direct forward radiation from two speakers creates a phantom sound image between
> the speakers, best appreciated in a low reverberant room, with the speakers toed in at the
> listener, and listening close to the speakers to get the room sound down as far as possible.
> Taken to logical extremes the set up would be out of doors, no room sound, just direct
> sound. Under optimum conditions and with coincident microphone recordings the speakers
> disappear, the phantom sound is localised between them but not from them and nothing
> seems to originate from the space beyond the boxes.
> Compare and contrast with weak direct radiation (speakers not toed in towards the listener)
> listened to from a distance much greater than the distance between speakers, in a lively
> room, under these conditions the phantom image is weak or not present, instead there is a
> "soundstage" that is wider than the speaker separation, that is an artifact of the phase
> disparities due to reflections from the room boundaries. Taken to extremes the ultimate setup
> is omnidirectional speakers in a lively room playing back recordings made with spaced omni
> Robert also introduced a factor with narrow front speaker box designs, the edge diffractions
> occur earlier in time than with a comparable wide front box. These add to the time delay
> confusion that is inherent in spaced omni recordings.
> Does that help?
> On 3 Mar 2011 at 1:27, Fred wrote:
> > Can you clarify which particular two phenomena you refer to, Ted?
- No apology needed!
People who make such recordings for some reason
regard 60 degrees as a theoretical ideal(which
of course it is not, not for any particular purpose,
it is just a convention). So if you want to hear
what they heard, you could try that.
But as we were discussing, there is no playback paradigm.
There is no set up where recording the playback would produce
the original recording for example.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "laurie483000" <laurie483000@...> wrote:
> If I recall correctly, Blumlein recordings can be (or perhaps are even best) listened to with speakers subtending an angle of 90 degrees with the listening position.
> I've had quite a few Telarcs arrive recently and so it would be good to know whether I'm right to assume that it is better to sit further back when listening to such spaced omni recordings, particularly if the recording mics had been widely spaced apart? Sitting say an angle of 60 degrees with the speakers, or is it difficult to generalize?
> Apologies if this was covered recently, but been away for a few days and haven't had time to properly read all messages.
> --- In email@example.com, "Robert" <regonaudio@> wrote:
> > I shall listen to this again. But I would like to reiterate
> > once more that I actually often like spaced omni miking.
> > What I am against is expecting it to do things that it cannot
> > do and spending lots of time, effort, and money trying
> > to get it to do things it cannot, or can only by accident.
> > That is a different thing from disliking it!
> > A different thing entirely.
> > Real concert music is dominated by diffuse soundfield if
> > one listens anywhere but very close. Stereo imaging is largely
> > just something about hi fi. Concert music is mostly kind of
> > frontal nowhere in reality if you sit some distance away.