|
Post by nick8801 on Jul 2, 2017 13:41:43 GMT -6
What do you guys think makes a speaker have depth?
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,934
|
Post by ericn on Jul 2, 2017 14:26:46 GMT -6
How do people feel about 2-way vs 3-way monitors in general? I've never used 3-ways before. Looking at those Lyd 48's Nick suggested, since I donlike the Dynauduo sound. Blanket statements are always dangerous, especially when it comes to speakers. That said in general terms 3 ways should offer a more extended frequency response, however at a given price point you are spreading it out over more drivers and crossover components. There are very good reasonably priced drives often I have mentioned the Morrel Tweeter used in many Questeds is $75ea and the Mid used in the lower priced Quested V& VS) & PMC 3 ways is also $75, that's single piece retail. Most 3 ways are larger cabinets and need to be set back farther for best results, there are exceptions. Most who use 3 ways also have smaller 2 ways for a different perspective. I always suggest keeping your old monitors for awhile so you can learn your new speakers.
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Jul 2, 2017 15:44:07 GMT -6
How do people feel about 2-way vs 3-way monitors in general? I've never used 3-ways before. Looking at those Lyd 48's Nick suggested, since I donlike the Dynauduo sound. Blanket statements are always dangerous, especially when it comes to speakers. That said in general terms 3 ways should offer a more extended frequency response, however at a given price point you are spreading it out over more drivers and crossover components. There are very good reasonably priced drives often I have mentioned the Morrel Tweeter used in many Questeds is $75ea and the Mid used in the lower priced Quested V& VS) & PMC 3 ways is also $75, that's single piece retail. Most 3 ways are larger cabinets and need to be set back farther for best results, there are exceptions. Most who use 3 ways also have smaller 2 ways for a different perspective. I always suggest keeping your old monitors for awhile so you can learn your new speakers. You using 2108's?
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 2, 2017 15:48:28 GMT -6
nick8801 said, "What do you guys think makes a speaker have depth?
Well, for one thing, the low end. In my home stereo, I have a REL subwoofer. They don't call it that, they call it an "ambience retrieval system", and they're right, it does exactly that. When I turn it off. the image of my stereo flattens, turn it on, and I hear the space, feel the size of the room, and can place individual musicians within the soundstage.
My Abbey's go to 35Hz and have 400 watts, with 200 watts dedicated to the low end. A good amount of power also seems to help with depth, I think because the low end is less distorted.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,934
|
Post by ericn on Jul 2, 2017 15:53:54 GMT -6
Blanket statements are always dangerous, especially when it comes to speakers. That said in general terms 3 ways should offer a more extended frequency response, however at a given price point you are spreading it out over more drivers and crossover components. There are very good reasonably priced drives often I have mentioned the Morrel Tweeter used in many Questeds is $75ea and the Mid used in the lower priced Quested V& VS) & PMC 3 ways is also $75, that's single piece retail. Most 3 ways are larger cabinets and need to be set back farther for best results, there are exceptions. Most who use 3 ways also have smaller 2 ways for a different perspective. I always suggest keeping your old monitors for awhile so you can learn your new speakers. You using 2108's? Older H108's same drivers, crossover, configuration, but wide vs tall cabinets! I really love the Volt 8ins , but I would love to upgrade the Mids to either the Volt 3in or 2 in mid and the Morrel Tweet to the lovely Transducer Labs Beryllium dome!
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,934
|
Post by ericn on Jul 2, 2017 15:55:54 GMT -6
What do you guys think makes a speaker have depth? Like most thing speaker related it's a sum of all the parts, not one or 2 things!
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 2, 2017 16:12:00 GMT -6
Of course Eric is correct, but I still say it's mainly the quality of the low end that affects depth in particular the most. Why else would my home system go from 2 D to 3 D when I turn the REL sub on.
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jul 2, 2017 16:19:38 GMT -6
hmm is that actually true as bass is omni directional does it tell you anything about where the sound is actually coming from ? Or perhaps directionality doesn't convey space so much but our sense of the differences in timing and freq shifts of first reflections, ambient reflections and decay do more so ?
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Jul 2, 2017 17:08:55 GMT -6
NS10!
:LOL: JK
|
|
|
Post by duke on Jul 2, 2017 20:37:41 GMT -6
What do you guys think makes a speaker have depth? For good image depth, imo we don't want any significant reflecting or diffracting features on the baffle face or nearby. Reflections or diffraction that occurs within about .68 milliseconds of the first-arrival sound is especially likely to be detrimental to imaging. After that, the precedence effect kicks in, and helps to reduce the image-shifting tendency of early reflections. But in general, any early reflections are detrimental to imaging.
The speaker's frequency response can have an effect ... a "smiley-face" curve tends to make the vocals sound more distant, while a "frowny-face" curve tends to bring them forward.
Imo speaker/room interaction plays a significant role. The ear/brain system judges the size of the room, and to a large extent the depth of the soundstage, from the time differential between the first-arrival sound and the onset of reflections. In particular, reflections off the wall behind the speakers play a role in soundstage depth, and at least in un-treated listening rooms, it is unusual to get soundstage depth significantly deeper than twice the distance from the front of the speaker to the wall behind it. So if the speakers are 3 feet out from the wall, it would be unusual to get a soundstage that seems to go deeper than about 6 feet behind the speakers - at least that has been my experience in untreated rooms. I don't think this limitation applies to a good flush-mount installation. Anyway one implication of this is, you can often increase the soundstage depth by pulling the speakers out into the room a bit further. Whether this is an overall net benefit or not probably depends on the specifics.
Some types of home-audio speakers are known for having very good soundstage depth when set up properly, and can serve as an example of the principle described above. For instance, Magneplanars tend to have very good, solid soundstage depth when positioned at least five feet out into the room. Their strong backwave reflection off the wall behind them is pretty much what establishes the "onset" of reflections, and it happens after a long enough time delay that the sense of depth and spaciousness are both pretty good.
The ear/brain system does infer a sense of immersion and envelopment from very low-frequency energy, even if it's just hall ambience instead of actual music signal. Even moreso if there is a phase difference at each of the ears, as with a recording that has good stereo separation all the way down. Over in the home audio world, some people synthesize this phase differential, and thereby the resulting sense of immersion and envelopment, by using a technique suggested by David Griesinger: Use two subs, positioned to the left and right of the listening area. Set their phase controls 90 degrees apart - in what's called "phase quadrature" - and this offers a good combination of low-end extension and convincing sense of envelopment. In my experience you can further increase the sense of envelopment by going all the way to 180 degrees phase differential, but this results in less low-end energy because at very long wavelengths the dominant interaction is cancellation.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 2, 2017 20:51:46 GMT -6
Great point about speaker distance from walls affecting depth Duke. The Abbeys do well, even when close to the wall in part due to the port system, but when you can get them further away, it's even better.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,934
|
Post by ericn on Jul 2, 2017 21:55:14 GMT -6
What do you guys think makes a speaker have depth? For good image depth, imo we don't want any significant reflecting or diffracting features on the baffle face or nearby. Reflections or diffraction that occurs within about .68 milliseconds of the first-arrival sound is especially likely to be detrimental to imaging. After that, the precedence effect kicks in, and helps to reduce the image-shifting tendency of early reflections. But in general, any early reflections are detrimental to imaging.
The speaker's frequency response can have an effect ... a "smiley-face" curve tends to make the vocals sound more distant, while a "frowny-face" curve tends to bring them forward.
Imo speaker/room interaction plays a significant role. The ear/brain system judges the size of the room, and to a large extent the depth of the soundstage, from the time differential between the first-arrival sound and the onset of reflections. In particular, reflections off the wall behind the speakers play a role in soundstage depth, and at least in un-treated listening rooms, it is unusual to get soundstage depth significantly deeper than twice the distance from the front of the speaker to the wall behind it. So if the speakers are 3 feet out from the wall, it would be unusual to get a soundstage that seems to go deeper than about 6 feet behind the speakers - at least that has been my experience in untreated rooms. I don't think this limitation applies to a good flush-mount installation. Anyway one implication of this is, you can often increase the soundstage depth by pulling the speakers out into the room a bit further. Whether this is an overall net benefit or not probably depends on the specifics.
Some types of home-audio speakers are known for having very good soundstage depth when set up properly, and can serve as an example of the principle described above. For instance, Magneplanars tend to have very good, solid soundstage depth when positioned at least five feet out into the room. Their strong backwave reflection off the wall behind them is pretty much what establishes the "onset" of reflections, and it happens after a long enough time delay that the sense of depth and spaciousness are both pretty good.
The ear/brain system does infer a sense of immersion and envelopment from very low-frequency energy, even if it's just hall ambience instead of actual music signal. Even moreso if there is a phase difference at each of the ears, as with a recording that has good stereo separation all the way down. Over in the home audio world, some people synthesize this phase differential, and thereby the resulting sense of immersion and envelopment, by using a technique suggested by David Griesinger: Use two subs, positioned to the left and right of the listening area. Set their phase controls 90 degrees apart - in what's called "phase quadrature" - and this offers a good combination of low-end extension and convincing sense of envelopment. In my experience you can further increase the sense of envelopment by going all the way to 180 degrees phase differential, but this results in less low-end energy because at very long wavelengths the dominant interaction is cancellation.
Very true, but we have to remember the image we are presenting is a sythisized image, the image presented by the large Magnepans, Quested H208's TAD's and Vandersteens are all different. This is a major part of why I won't mix on the Magnepans or Quad ESL's . A big part is the matching of Drivers and crossover fo consistent phase interaction. While I agree with Duke I have heard excellent soundstage on the old Infinity IRS with the big curved baffles and some ATC's with some pretty large baffles, so like I said sum of the parts. We also have to understand that soundstage has a lot to do with placement and besides the physical limits rooms and life in general will place on placement, position is often a compromise of various so ic factors, more often than not bass and soundstage performance.
|
|
|
Post by ChaseUTB on Jul 2, 2017 22:10:20 GMT -6
What do you guys think makes a speaker have depth? When it has width and height 😂 What do you mean by depth? Front to back sound stage/ representation ?
|
|
|
Post by duke on Jul 2, 2017 22:19:39 GMT -6
Very true, but we have to remember the image we are presenting is a sythisized image, the image presented by the large Magnepans, Quested H208's TAD's and Vandersteens are all different. This is a major part of why I won't mix on the Magnepans or Quad ESL's . A big part is the matching of Drivers and crossover fo consistent phase interaction. While I agree with Duke I have heard excellent soundstage on the old Infinity IRS with the big curved baffles and some ATC's with some pretty large baffles, so like I said sum of the parts. We also have to understand that soundstage has a lot to do with placement and besides the physical limits rooms and life in general will place on placement, position is often a compromise of various so ic factors, more often than not bass and soundstage performance. Good point, I should have made it clear that I was NOT suggesting Maggies or somesuch for mixing - just offering them as an extreme example of the effect of behind-the-speaker wall-bounce on soundstage depth.
A big smooth baffle may well be the best from an imaging standpoint, especially if the cabinet edges are at least .68 milliseconds (9.2 inches) away from the drivers. One of the best-imaging speakers I can remember was the Snell Type A, with a two-foot-wide curved baffle hidden under a grille. Never got to hear the Infinity IRS.
* * * *
I found a YouTube video that imo offers a demonstration of the relative effects of early vs later reflections on depth (among other things).
This is a talk given by David Griesinger. His specialty is the acoustics and psychoacoustics of concert halls, and in this talk he plays some interesting clips. The clips start at 13:19, and go to 15:02. These might be best heard over headphones, just to exclude a second set of room acoustics, even though headphones don't really present a natural image... I think the point will come across anyway.
In the first clip, we have the direct sound only. It's time-gated to exclude all reflections, and this in turn excludes the longer wavelengths, so the tonal balance is unnaturally thin. The point is that the voice sounds "proximate", or close to the ears (and thus lacking in depth), when reflections are absent.
The second clip is the direct sound + first reflections. The first reflections degrade the clarity of the singer's voice. The timbre is warmed up because the time gating window is open for a longer period of time, allowing the longer wavelengths to be included. Depth is still fairly "shallow".
The third clip is the most interesting: Direct sound minus the first reflections, plus all of the later reflections. Now we have depth and spaciousness! And imo we also have timbral richness and good clarity.
The final clip is of course everything: direct sound + first reflections + all later reflections. Depth is still good, timbre may be a bit more natural, but imo the clarity of the singer's voice is degraded relative to the previous clip.
So in the context of "what makes a speaker have depth?", I think these clips show that later-arrival in-room reflections can be beneficial in a number of ways, including imparting a sense of depth, but the early reflections are not very helpful. Of course the timescale for a concert hall is quite a bit different from the timescale for a project studio, but I think the same general principle still applies... in other words, I think that minimizing the early reflections while retaining later-arrival reverberant energy is beneficial.
I have worked with this concept fairly extensively in home audio, using techniques that would not be appropriate for a recording studio. I can describe them if anyone is interested. But briefly, the conclusion is the same: The less early-arrival reflections the better, and (up to a point) the more later-arriving reflections the better (as long as they meet certain criteria). For the rooms I work with in home audio, anything before about 10 milliseconds is "early" and anything after about 10 milliseconds is "late", but the transition is a lot fuzzier than is implied by specifying an actual number.
I think this general principle has implications for speaker choice, and speaker positioning, in a project studio.
|
|
|
Post by nick8801 on Jul 3, 2017 5:31:01 GMT -6
What do you guys think makes a speaker have depth? When it has width and height 😂 What do you mean by depth? Front to back sound stage/ representation ? Front to back image.
|
|
|
Post by nick8801 on Jul 3, 2017 5:33:49 GMT -6
Sorry to derail the thread Ragan!
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jul 3, 2017 9:42:27 GMT -6
Sorry to derail the thread Ragan! Not derailed in any way. All interesting info/perspective. I think I'm gonna demo a pair of Lyd 48s BTW, thanks for the tipoff there. I love my Dyn's, I just kinda want 'more' of it sonit seems a logical thing to try. I'm also just keen to try 3-ways in general.
|
|
|
Post by ChaseUTB on Jul 3, 2017 9:53:53 GMT -6
Sorry to derail the thread Ragan! Not derailed in any way. All interesting info/perspective. I think I'm gonna demo a pair of Lyd 48s BTW, thanks for the tipoff there. I love my Dyn's, I just kinda want 'more' of it sonit seems a logical thing to try. I'm also just keen to try 3-ways in general. Congrats man! Gettin my Barefoot FootPrint setup will let you know how I fare lol.. have a big mastering project coming up idk if iI should switch monitors or not... my babies been in the box for 2 weeks at least 🙃
|
|
|
Post by ChaseUTB on Jul 3, 2017 9:55:11 GMT -6
When it has width and height 😂 What do you mean by depth? Front to back sound stage/ representation ? Front to back image. The speaker as a whole, working together in a good design. Larger enclosure for me offer more real world perception in sound stage.. like you can hear beyond the music
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jul 21, 2017 17:34:05 GMT -6
So I've been digging around, thanks for all the suggestions.
I've pre-ordered a pair of the Dynaudio LYD 48s. They won't be available till early August. But what little there is out there is mixed (review wise). A few people have been very impressed with them, one guy on GS has given really detailed feedback after having them awhile. He sold off his costlier PSI's I believe. But a couple people also were unimpressed. Particularly two guys who compared the LYD 48s to their BM15a's didn't think the LYD 48s stood up to them.
This whole thing has made me think of a different way to ask this question: I've been using my BM5a's (MKII) and really like them. But I suspect I could get more detail and higher performance if I shelled out more coin. I don't think I'd spend more than about $2500. My question is, is my assumption correct? Can I do that much better than the BM5a's for that money? It all seems so subjective and all the really heavy hitting monitors seem to start at like $3-4k and go up from there. I'd like better monitoring...can I get it for $2500?
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 21, 2017 20:25:33 GMT -6
My wife says it's all about the girth.
|
|
|
Post by nick8801 on Jul 21, 2017 20:31:44 GMT -6
I'm in the same boat as you Ragan. I was working at a studio near me the other day, and the owner uses hs8's with the matching sub. Got to chatting with him about monitors and he was a big fan of the sub option as opposed to a more costly three way system. I'm still on the fence, but after pricing all my options the one that fits right into budget are the Neumann kh120's with the sub. I was looking at the lyd48 and will probably still audition them, the footprints, the new hedd type 20's, and after hearing the yammies with the sub, I feel like that might be the route. I'm not a fan of the midrange on the Yamahas, but the size of the image in his room is spectacular. The sub really gives the music feeling and allows the nearfields to work easier as they are not responsible for anything below say 80 or so. I've heard lots of good things about Neumann's monitor range, so they have definitely made my list. If budget was no option I would totally grab a pair of atc scm20's with a matching sub, but I haven't hit the lottery yet!
|
|
|
Post by mdmitch2 on Jul 21, 2017 20:34:00 GMT -6
I'm a big fan of PSI monitors -- the A17s are perfect for a smaller room. Call up Warren at zenpro --- he's a straight shooter and also sells Amphion and Dynaudio. Pretty sure he'd let you send them back too if you don't like them.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,934
|
Post by ericn on Jul 21, 2017 20:41:30 GMT -6
Might I suggest you look at the used market? $2500 can buy a lot of used monitor, plus if it's not for you easy to turn with very little loss.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 21, 2017 21:17:22 GMT -6
John, does "girth" equal phat?
|
|