Home Propeller Head Plaza

Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Propeller Head Plaza ]
[ Alert Moderator ]

A More Realistic Presentation...

I found Lambda's post and it's thread to be quite interesting reading. However the more I thought about his original reason i.e. I find myself yearning for a more realistic presentation, i.e., a bigger, more diffuse, more enveloping soundstage. The more I had some reservations with what "a more realistic presentation" meant to him and whether or not it actually presented "a more realistic presentation" or a presentation he just prefered.

As I see it, speakers that were designed to intentionally produce a bigger, more diffuse, more enveloping soundstage. Would immediately be incorrect on all recordings except those wherein the original acoustic event had a a bigger, more diffuse, more enveloping soundstage, no? As an example of what I mean. what if a recording of a group like Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young had been recorded live, unamplified & on a stage outside. How much information would be reflecting off side and rear walls that didn't exist to provide a bigger, more diffuse, more enveloping soundstage?

Mind you I am asking these questions here in an attempt to understand if direct radiating speakers or those with intentional rear-relections such as with a rear tweeter or a dipole, would represent the more accurate replication of the original acoustic event on the majority of recordings. Knowing the answer to that question would seem to dicate which type of speakers would provide "a more realistic presentation" most of the time. Although I've owned three ribbon dipoles in the past (Original Carver Amazing, Infinity RS-2.5, Fostex FP-1001) and loved what they did. I'm not completely convinced it was "a more realistic presentation" than the direct radiating speakers I've owned.

Then we need to consider there are many designers who intentionally try to keep reflections to a minimum through controlled dispertion like Linkwitz Lab's Orion. So again I'm questioning if a bigger, more diffuse, more enveloping soundstage is the means of obtaining "a more realistic presentation" of a live acoustic event most of the time.

Lately I've come to believe that one of the major factors the ear/brain combo uses to determine live from recorded music is dynamic range & transient response. I know there are many others factors such as timbral and harmonic accuracy, a flat frequency response, zero distortion etc. besides dynamic range & transient response that play a part in a speakers ability to present "a more realistic presentation." I think this is one of the major factors, but I could be mistaken. I'd be very interested in Tom Danley's input on that area.

In any event I came across this article on Loudspeakers, Mutual Coupling and Keith R Holland lSVR, University of Southampton, UK Philip R Newell Moana, Spain, to which I provided the link to below. As I didn't read every single post in Lambda's post and it's thread, if it was refered to earlier this may be a moot point.

Keep enjoying the music -- Thetubeguy1954

It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows. - Epictetus

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Parts Connexion  

Topic - A More Realistic Presentation... - thetubeguy1954 10:28:27 11/17/06 (126)
You can not post to an archived thread.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]