HornEd Posted June 1, 2002 Share Posted June 1, 2002 Gee, TheEar(s), you also seem to be short on dipoles as well. Heh, heh. Now how is Keith going to appreciate your "knowledgeable audiophile" status? Seriously, TheEar(s), I agree with you in not being enthusiastic about how THX has been prostituted and only mention who bought the lion's share as an example of how far Lucas Films will stoop to pick up a few extra mil with their "standard". But, on second thought, I can't see the value of sending 60% of the THX North American profits to Singapore's economy when there is so little actual value received on this side of the pond. However, like you, I own no "THX Certified" products, and if I did, it would certainly be for some other attribute than the THX factor. Always glad to see the Klipsch Forum still has its Ear(s) on! -HornED Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anarchist Posted June 1, 2002 Author Share Posted June 1, 2002 HornEd, I did not need a reality check as the fact remains a 5.1 system plays the 6.1 format through its surround speakers. Extracting that information from two channels and blending the sound does not make it discrete. I knew DTS had additional bandwidth in its format but did not know if they were actually providing a discrete signal or using a matrixed signal. The question is what are you interested in hearing? The audio as envisioned by the person creating the soundtrack or the 'mix' created by a processor by making 7 channels out of 5 - or even two for that matter. This post edited to remove any possibly objectionable 'pokes.' This message has been edited by crash827 on 06-06-2002 at 08:16 AM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HornEd Posted June 1, 2002 Share Posted June 1, 2002 Crash, I will try to be brief but that often leads to overly abrupt conclusions. A discrete channel, in my book, is one that contains unique information that is sent to one speaker destination. 5.1 has six discrete channels. 6.1 has seven discrete channels. 7.1 has only six discrete channels at this time since the rear channel serves two speakers in the Dolby version. I see no distinction between the use of the term "discrete" to describe sounds mixed at a studio or sounds mixed in the processor of one's home theater... as long as the sound in that channel is different or discrete from the sound in any other channel. Lexicon's approach shifts sound around so expertly because it creates a better set of discretely delivered sounds to the destination speakers... which, in their upscale $100,000 design, are monopoles in the front and the rear with dipoles in the center. The selectivity of the character of sound going to each discrete location provides the control factor. Dipoles take discrete input and broadcast it over a wide area creating multiple reflections that de-localize the sound reaching one's ears... which has the effect of widening the sweet spot... and, therefore, the Lexicon algorithms provide sounds appropriate for dipole distribution. As I understand it, Lexicon's Logic 7, in effect, re-mixes the sound input to more precisely fit the speakers being used... and that is a good, but expensive at present, thing. Lesser processors do not do that, and with the expansion of mixing techniques, sounds that are better as localized sounds get run through the dipole wringer... and that is what I object to in wide-dispersion ambience speakers. At lease, the WDST approach provides localized sound aimed at the sweet spot providing that it is under about 2kHz... everything above goes out at 180°... strikes people in various parts of a wider sweet spot and then is reflected back to those people from countless objects rendering the information as non-localized or ambient sound. So, that's great for what should be ambient... and not so hot for what should not. Part of your issue seems to be that if you put two sets of monopoles in one case firing in opposite directions (in phase or out) then you think it is wonderful... even at the expense of timbre matching and more precise localization of appropriate sounds. If I use two carefully positioned monopoles to do the same thing... and preserve timbre matching and precise localization of appropriate sounds, you think I'm in error. For me, better sound comes from using better speakers appropriately. That's what I try to do. That's what I try to recommend. When the appropriate speaker for a given acoustics situation seems to be WDST, I do not hesitate to recommend it. "Steering sound", as you so aptly put Lexicon's technique, is what happens when a mixer puts together a sound track. If that mixer assumes that the rear speaker array will be dipoles, then there will be little improvement in having extra rear channels because the sound is being bounced all over hell and back by the left and right rears in a 5.1 format. However, providing three or four monopoles in a precisely placed rear array will allow the mixer to provide ample ambience and meaningful localized sounds that, IMHO, far surpass randomly scattering the rear channel sound with multiple wide-dispersion speakers. I'm not much for DSP chips that create pseudo-effects like "hall", "stadium", etc., but sometimes they help me get through poorly mixed offerings by re-mixing the faulty track. I am not much for dipoles (as recommended by Dolby and THX standards) for they, too, create a pseudo-effect beyond what's provided in the mix. Granted, some mixers seem less inclined to provide the full-range of sound that is available on 5.1 (and above)... maybe if some of them would catch up to the prevailing trend of 5.1 (and above) exploration, they would win the Academy Award for Best Sound instead of just being nominated. One thing is for sure... the road to better sound is moving ahead... and "steering sound" with greater precision on all discrete channels is on the horizon. -HornED Part of the problem is that wide-dispersion speakers, for the most part, just don't have the size drivers and cabinet volume to deliver the full character of the sound of full-range rear tracks (whether speakers are set to "SMALL" or "LARGE"... an adequate subwoofer picks up the difference of non-directional sound in the "SMALL" setting.). But, I will also agree that using undersized drivers and cabinets with a wide dispersion approach has done a lot for the Bose bottom line... so the strategy is indeed popular with a great many people. Maybe some of us are just a little more "picky"... and just maybe we have a right to be. -HornED PS: I'd like to hang around but I am off on another adventure trip. This message has been edited by HornEd on 06-01-2002 at 10:47 AM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anarchist Posted June 1, 2002 Author Share Posted June 1, 2002 Hi HornEd, You can pick up a Lexicon processor for a grand or two depending on which model you want. I disagree with your assessment of discrete. Under your definition, two channel audio becomes 6.1 discrete channels. Lexicon, and every other processor that does this, takes sounds intended for one channel and sends them to whatever speaker they feel like. This post edited to remove any possibly objectionable 'pokes.' This message has been edited by crash827 on 06-06-2002 at 08:08 AM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boa12 Posted June 1, 2002 Share Posted June 1, 2002 just to clarify, the only format right now that has 6.1 discrete channels is dts es 6.1 discrete, & only if that is both encoded on the disk & decoded by that specific decoder in the capable processor. & ed, a while back you were saying that lower freqs are directional down to at least 60hz & maybe more (which i agreed). are you now saying that only sound above 90hz is directional? & 90hz is not a brick wall as in the sub will be playing well above 90hz though at a decreasing output as you know in slope characteristics. ------------------ My Home Systems Page Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HornEd Posted June 1, 2002 Share Posted June 1, 2002 Just to clarify the clarification. A discrete channel, in my book, is one that has unique program information which is not identical to another channel. When a 5.1 DVD is made with six discrete channels, there usually is quite a bit of information that is shared by one or more channels by the mixing process. The six discrete channels on a 5.1 DVD can be reinterpreted by a processor (like Lexicon and others) to provide a unique channel made up of a composite of the rear channels which then becomes just as discrete a channel to the rear effects speaker(s). Both what a mixer does and what the processor does constitutes post possessing... of the original sound recordings. Discrete simply means that the sound is not shared between two (or more) channels such as it is in Dolby ProLogic where the left and right surrounds have identical program material. Now, there are some who will automatically downgrade 6.1 discrete programming created in the processor from a 5.1 source... but I have heard too many poorly mixed DVD's to be one of them. I have heard various opinions as to where sound becomes non-localized. I believe hearing acuity and reflected harmonics have a lot to do with what frequency is perceived as localized and which is not. Obviously, some people perceive different frequencies with varying acuity. This is, in part, why hard numbers are usually not given for an exact dividing line between directional and non-directional sounds below 80 or 90Hz. Obviously, acoustics considerations like secondary reflections further denigrate one's ability to determine sound localization. -HornED Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boa12 Posted June 1, 2002 Share Posted June 1, 2002 ed, ok got ya - saying a matrixed channel is a discrete channel because it was mixed encoded as a matrixed channel rather than matrixed in post-processing. that is a pretty grey area. hard to get inside the head of mixer/encoder intent. like w/ a center in prologic decoding though it's a matrixed channel, did the mixers/encoders mix/encode w/ more mono info to supplement the "center" channel? my definition of discrete is a channel that can carry distinct, seperate sounds not carried on any other channel. guess whether a mix/encoded combo of the same sounds found on the surrounds channels is indeed a discrete sound is subjective. i think it was somebody at dolby &/or thx that determined all sounds below 80hz aren't localized for all persons. being the rebel i am i say that's bunk for me. i've got the test tones to prove it. ------------------ My Home Systems Page Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T2K Posted June 2, 2002 Share Posted June 2, 2002 What I don't understand is the necessity to constantly use word association in an attempt to further one's opinion and to diminish the opinion of another. In my mind that style accomplishes the reverse effect. In the end there is no right or wrong, only preference. I also don't understand the timbre mismatch often referred to when speaking about WDST. If one were to closely examine,for instance, Crash's KSP400's one would find that the driver's that operate above 80Hz have their own enclosure inside the larger enclosure, much like the same driver's that operate inside the KSP-S6 enclosure. I do not know the internal volume of either enclosure,however.I've also never heard anyone complain of timbre mismatch when using the appropiate front/WDST surrounds(matching speakers). Everyone knows I use powered towers front and rear so the rear bass is not an issue for me. I do however also use a rear sub wired speaker level with the KSP300 surrounds and find that, as boa said, there is substantial bass in the surrounds. Just watched Spy Game in DTS and it sounded great. Point being that to set up and use multiple monopole surrounds to achieve seamless envelopment correctly a person would need a very large room. Mine is 16X20 and is way too small. The multi-large monopole surround idea will never go over on a large scale,IMO. Too much money,takes too much room for the average person. Keith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HornEd Posted June 4, 2002 Share Posted June 4, 2002 Boa, just got in from my latest trip and noticed your reply. By your definition there would NO discrete channels for state of the art mixing puts various levels of common sounds on many if not all channels. By checking the similar sounds recorded on both left and right channels, an appropriate sound can be matrixed to the rear effects channel... just as a mixer would likely do if the DVD was mixed for 6.1. Discrete channels are simply channels that have a unique mix on them whether they are mixed by engineers or DSP's, the sound going to the rear effects is different from the full sound going to the left channel or the right channel. A similar technique was used to create the front center channel by DSP early in the HT evolution. Keith, the ability for Dipole, WDST or KSP-S6's to convey timbre is destroyed by the multiple reflections that bounce around the room... this is part of what I have been trying to convey in terms of loss of character that occurs when using wide-dispersion solutions... and why I suggest people put in a monopole rear effects if they are using wide-dispersion speakers as side/surrounds. I am not trying to win an argument, I am trying to get more people to understand sound and where I believe it is going. If you and Crash like what you have... that's wonderful... but it should not interfere with newbies or Forum members learning about alternative methods for creating sound in a 16' x 20' room without using wide dispersion. With a little research into the acoustics effects of wide-dispersion, you too could understand why timbre matching is the province of monopole speakers. On your point that most people would not spend as much money on speakers and gear as Q-Man, Soundog, USParc, or I have... and that may be so. And, sorry, but I don't understand the validity of your "word association" comment. Sounds like someone's playing word games and it is not me. -HornED Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forresthump Posted June 4, 2002 Share Posted June 4, 2002 O HornedOne just some quick questions Have you ever admitted being wrong in your life or are you like Fonzie??? Have you ever asked a question without forming it as a statement or without knowing the answer beforehand??? Just joking with you ole buddy. Nudge Nudge. ------------------ go forth & hump the world Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HornEd Posted June 4, 2002 Share Posted June 4, 2002 Forresthump, once again your wit has "Nudged" me into some happy space between the cracks of a work-a-day world. But, I am afraid that you Fonzie would not appreciate the comparison. Actually, in all the posts there have been those where a statement I have made has either been untrue or phrased in such a way that it inadvertently suggested something that was not strictly correct. When challenged, I review the situation and provide immediate clarification... even if that entails a dozen mea culpas and a hair shirt apology.In a Forum where many people are seeking answers to which they have apparently done little meaningful research, asking questions to which you have a pretty good idea of the answer is a way if encouraging some folks to think for themselves a bit. Certainly you have been a help in shocking a few folks to think rather than simply react. That's the kind of stuff that will help them get over the hump of the typical knee-jerk audio salesperson. Fortunately, we have some audio sales types on this Forum that bring an important perspective for all of us to consider. When I have questions for which I am seeking an answer, I will usually post them as a new topic... and sadly, I do not get many responses. An example is getting great Klipsch sound out of a 30' x 8' space of a Class "A" motorhome. Going from a Klipschorn based music system or the Legend based HT... into a trip in the motorhome leaves a lot to be desired... even with WDST. While I try to write in a way that is amusing and interesting... not everyone seems to think so. As I recall, there has even been a Forum member or two that have found some of your prose beyond their scope of civility... Nudge, Nudge... but, fortunately, you persevere and go forth to "Nudge the World" of Hump-er-dinks... and create a Forum following in the process! Early in my Forum posting process, people like BobG and some of the more experienced Forum hands pointed out that some of my thoughts on audio were rooted in old experiences that did not account for new technology or the latest research on their effect on acoustics and psychoacoustics. I hit the books and found, to a large measure, they were RIGHT. So, now I try to share what I have discovered so that people can try it or not as they prefer. Now I mostly get flack from those who don't understand the situation or think I am trying to get my jollies by engaging in meaningless debate for debate's sake... when actually I am trying to stamp out in others what was part of my "ignorant bliss" when I first joined the forum. You, obviously, have more of a talent for telling people their "living in a tree" than I do. I guess there are those who "hump the world" on one end and others that can't quite get over the hump on the other. Hmmm, maybe that Eagles tune, "Get Over It" is worthy of some special application in that respect. It certainly help heal the rift in the Eagle's nest and brought them back to close harmony even if the road required seven bridges. In that respect, I have had many initial detractors who have become my fast Forum friends over the past year or so. And that has occurred out of a mutual desire to know real answers instead of the "sleight of Hz" advertising oriented wizards put on web sites designed to boost sales whether it be for our favorite speaker company... or those ever popular Bose prose, or a film company selling off it's creditability to hustle "certification" fees for a shifting "standard". Wow, old Georgie boy must have read your post because he turned the Tom Holman eXperiment into a "go forth and hump the world" multi-million dollar income stream. But now it seems that that "Humper" has "feats of clay-mation" that even John Q. "Humpee" Public was beginning to understand... and George found someone who would pay him $8 million bucks to exercise the darkside of "THX Certification"... and still get 40% of the profits! When dudes get that slick, the "standards" they set tend to slide. And, oh yeah, there IS one question to which I do not have an answer. How is it that people who can discern the unrealistic effect that comes from not matching tone and timbre across the front array can't detect there is something missing in audio pans between the front and back array. It's timber for timbre matching when wide-dispersion brings up the rear. Okay, so maybe I have a clue on that one... but I am clueless on this question... As our resident humpologist, do you prefer camels with one hump or two? -HornED PS: Of course, I am apparently not so savvy when it comes to understanding discrete... for, to me, saying a channel must carry the sound that matches the intent of a mixing engineer for a channel to be discrete... is, at best, indiscrete... and something that will keep the Forum jury out a long, long time! In the great Gulf of my Unknowing there is a desert island and inscribed upon the rock thereon is..."A discrete channel is one in which the admixture of sound is unlike any other channel in the system." How it got in that delicate condition is beyond the purview of "discrete" and into the realm of "one hump or two"... IMHO. This message has been edited by HornEd on 06-04-2002 at 11:44 AM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anarchist Posted June 4, 2002 Author Share Posted June 4, 2002 Hi HornEd, The KLF30 sitting on top of that big Mitsubishi...not timbre matched. The mere act of sitting it on the TV - that big cabinet - has altered its timbre. Discrete. There are definitions all around. 5.1 is 6 discrete channels of data meaning each speaker has an encoded channel meant specifically for it. 6.1 is also 6 discrete channels resulting in the need for the processor to blend sounds from two channels to create the sound for the rear center. 7.1 (THX Ultra2)is exactly the same thing except additional processing is applied to make the rear channels sound slightly different from each other. This post edited to remove any possibly objectionable 'pokes.' This message has been edited by crash827 on 06-06-2002 at 08:07 AM 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boa12 Posted June 4, 2002 Share Posted June 4, 2002 ed, let's put it this way. dts es 6.1 discrete has the ability to carry a sound not found on any other channel in any shape or form in the rear center channel (1 or 2 speakers). thx/dolby ex 6.1 or 7.1 does not. that's my point buster. ------------------ My Home Systems Page This message has been edited by boa12 on 06-04-2002 at 01:35 PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HornEd Posted June 4, 2002 Share Posted June 4, 2002 How about that Crash... indeed it seems that another attempt at "mis-ED-ucation" is upon me once again! The characteristic sound of a waveform is called its timbre. Timbre, also referred to as tone color, is said to be rich or full when there are many different frequencies in a sound. Most people would consider a sound from a sine wave to be dull since it only has one frequency. A sound's different frequencies, each with varying amplitudes, are also referred to as the spectral content of a waveform. The spectral content, which you might say is the more scientific term for timbre, usually varies over time and is diminished in character early reflections beyond the first. I hope that other Forum members derive as much humor from your attempt to "prove" that speakers are not timbre matched if they are in different positions. Since the character of the speaker tone and that of its first reflection combine to provide the essential tone shading that is timbre, almost by definition no two speakers will have precisely identical timbre... as I have related on numerous posts on this Forum. The more secondary reflections the more the tonal character called timbre fades into an essentially timbre tone. Wide-dispersion speaker formats that radiate sound over a 180° span tend to produce multiple reflections that drown timbre in a sea of ambience. Hey, if that's your cup of sonic tea... so be it... just don't tell me I have to stick it in my ear... a little scholarly research shows you to be quite myth-informed if you don't realize that timbre is a tone character created, and potentially lost, by reflections. And to suggest that all loudspeakers have similar reflective patterns problems as it applies to timbre is totally without merit. With such great gaps in your acoustics and psychoacoustics knowledge base, the humor of your posted assertion that my "opinion has no technological basis" ought to have the more knowledgeable folks on this Forum rolling in the aisles! Now, I will grant you that 5.1 is encoded with six "discrete" channels on the DVD... but in some processors, those six discrete channels are re-formulated to become seven (or more) "discrete" channels when they leave the processor. "Discrete" is a term that refers to an "unique aggregate sound" that may be delivered to a loudspeaker location for replication and it has no relevance as to how that "unique aggregate sound" came into being. Sorry, just because a discrete channel is added by extracting partial sounds from two discrete tracks on a DVD doesn't make the new "unique aggregate sound" reaching the loudspeaker any less discrete. However, if a discrete channel is wired to more than one loudspeaker, than the sound from any one of those loudspeakers so attached, in the main, would not be discrete. Now, if you want to make a case against using formulas and machinery to create different discrete channels... that is a different issue. And since multiple microphones are used to record the original sound... and that sound is "folded, spindled and mutilated" by various techniques used by mixing engineers... and finally recombined as six "discrete" tracks (at least in the case of 5.1) from perhaps as many as 42 discretely recorded channels. So, if six "discrete" channels are electronically engineered from 42 "discrete" channels should we think of the six channel output as not really being "discrete?" I think not. Nor does it follow that seven "discrete" channels are less than "discrete" if they have been electronically derived from six "discrete" channels. Then again, if you start with a discrete channel and disperse it over a wide area, like 180°, the reflected sound becomes more "ambient" in its multiple reflections rather than discrete by virtue of the speakers location. Those multiple reflections are the "fuzz" factor I referred to in earlier posts. Having found no shortage of red herrings, straw men and biased samples in your posts, I am at a loss for what you might propose for a way to convey advice that may be construed as helpful. Polemic approaches also serve less than the best interests of this Forum. Genuine answers are usually cast in shades of gray. The variables in producing sound and comprehending sound are far too complex for simplistic black and white answers. And, thanks, it is nice to be back. -HornED Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boa12 Posted June 4, 2002 Share Posted June 4, 2002 ed, if you're saying that discrete & matrixed channels are the same thing there must be some fuzzing going on there. is that what you're saying? that dts 6.1 discrete has no benefit over dolby/thx 7.1 EX as far as the rear channel(s). how 'bout localizeable sounds. someone shoots a gun from directly behind you. if the sound comes only from the rear center (dts 6.1 discrete) is this not more localizable than coming also from the surrounds to some degree (thx/dolby ex 7.1)? just an example. ------------------ My Home Systems Page Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HornEd Posted June 4, 2002 Share Posted June 4, 2002 Boa, in effect, all channels are matrixed from multiple microphones on dozens of recordings. All kinds of techniques such as varying volume or adding reverb are mixed into the final output post-processing recorded on a DVD. Thus, six "discrete" channels in 5.1 are provided to your processor. I you, as the mixing engineer of your sound system, elect to take the six discrete channels available and re-mix them as seven discrete channels by pushing buttons... then what reaches each of your seven primary speakers is a discretely mixed sound. Where, when or by whom the sound was mixed doesn't modify it's being discrete. There are matrix algorithms at the mixing engineers fingertips and there are matrix algorithms at your finger tips. The sound created by your fingertips can be every bit as discrete as that created by the engineer's fingertips. Localization of sounds have nothing to do with whether a channel is discrete or not. In fact, the mixing engineer can have a lot to do with what sounds will tend to be localized and what sounds will tend to be perceived as ambient. The more speakers being fed from discrete channels with the same background sounds, the more those background sounds will strike the ear from many different angles... and so the more ambient those background sounds will appear to the listener... even with all direct radiating speakers... as you have in your set up, Boa. Of course, if you sent the background sounds to only two wide-dispersion side-surround speakers, then the sound would reach your ears from many different reflected angles and would appear to be ambient rather than localized... even though the sound was sent over discrete channels. Of course it is up to the mixing engineer, but if he had the gunshot only on the Rear Effects channel in a 6.1 DTS DVD, the sound would be as localized as possible. On the Dolby/THX EX 7.1 approach, there is also a single, discrete Rear Effects channel but it is shared by two Rear Effects speakers and so the localization of the gunshot would be over a broader, less discrete, area. Eventually, I would expect the Dolby 7.1 technology embrace some differentiation for the Rear Effects speakers. Modern sound editing includes a series of matrix driven adjustments from the original multi-microphone recording... strictly speaking a sound matrix and a discrete channel are two different concepts that are misapplied when used to try to differentiate between two channels each with it's own "unique aggregate sound". Now, I have no problem with saying that the discrete Rear Effects channel has been matrixed by my processor from the discrete left and right surround channels. Simply put, "discrete" does not mean "not matrixed" unless it goes back to only one original source microphone... and that would make for a very poor soundtrack. -HornED PS: Boa, I think it is important to understand that the difference between having three or four wide-dispersion speakers in a rear array and having three or four monopole speakers is HUGE! The nature of the wide-dispersion speakers erodes the timbre and localization aspects of the rear array. For example, if you had a tank rumble around making an apparent circle around you... the character of the sound would change dramatically with wide-dispersion rears and much less with monopoles as you have them in your rig. As sound engineers improve their art to distribute appropriate levels of sound meant to be ambient through all appropriate discrete channels, seven monopole speakers plus the subwoofer(s) would make far better integrated ambient sound... without the trade offs associated with wide-dispersion. The difference is that trying to put all the localized sound and timbre matching across the front array and dumping all the non-timbre matched ambient sound in the rear array is a clumsy outmoded approach to the sound mixer's art. And the discussion we are now having is related to that obsolete approach that trickled down from ProLogic to THX. Five or six full-range discrete channels plus LFE creates a whole new range for those Tom Mix-er audio cowboys to ride. This message has been edited by HornEd on 06-04-2002 at 05:02 PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T2K Posted June 4, 2002 Share Posted June 4, 2002 Nice word there ED! POLEMIC. WDST speakers do not rely on reflections for diffusion. That would be dipoles. No more than a monopole in fact. Actually, each monopole on either side of the WDST cabinet radiates in a 90 degree pattern and is therefore unable to use the wall that that speaker is mounted on because of the controlled directivity of the horns. Forrest, how to you get a moose to stand close to a stump? Keith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forresthump Posted June 4, 2002 Share Posted June 4, 2002 TTKeith Same way EWE Do Or You Do A EWE. LOL I HAve to Agree With Professor Horny Here. MonoPole Work All the Way Around But WDST are Rotten for Music and Directional Sound. ------------------ go forth & hump the world Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HornEd Posted June 4, 2002 Share Posted June 4, 2002 Sorry Keith but you have been reading too much sales oriented WDST literature. Of course, WDST speakers use the wall they are mounted on... since the angle of the speaker allows some of the sound to bounce off that wall, and, further the speakers are aimed at bouncing off every object in the room including all the other walls. If you think that diffuse sound means that it will hit you as a wave directly from the speaker with no reflections and create ambient sound... you are sadly mistaken. And, so is the literature you have been quoting... even if it is written under the aegis of my favorite speaker company. Ambient sound is diffuse because its near reflections come from too many angles to be localized... dipoles are even more diffuse because they the two opposite mounted monopoles are also out-of-phase and they are designed to create a "soft null" in the sweet spot. At least WDST have one smallish woofer aimed at the sweet spot. Although they were originally supposed to be mounted like dipoles... most people seem to prefer to mount WDST speakers so that the front horn tweeter is catching a bit of the sweet spot along with the woofer and the second horn tweeter is bouncing off the rear wall for a rear center speaker effect. If WDST speakers were not designed to create multiple reflections and, thereby, provide ambient sounds over about 2kHz then why did they put the woofer in the middle? Why not put it with the horn tweeters like they did in the KSP-S6? Frankly, Keith, if WDST speakers were intended to reach a listener anywhere in the room without benefit of reflections... then they would provide localized sound like any other monopole. But, the sound is sprayed to take maximum advantage of reflections from more angles to make the sound appear more diffuse. Hey, that's how it works... it's based on well known acoustics principles... it's part of why PWK put his breakthrough horn in the corner... to gain the efficiency of the walls and provide localization with ambience through near reflections. No matter how you milk your "no reflections necessary" bull... you better hope for an empty bucket. -HornED This message has been edited by HornEd on 06-04-2002 at 08:02 PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anarchist Posted June 4, 2002 Author Share Posted June 4, 2002 quote: For example, if you had a tank rumble around making an apparent circle around you... the character of the sound would change dramatically with wide-dispersion rears and much less with monopoles as you have them in your rig. - HornEd This is not remotely true in my system. This post edited to remove any possibly objectionable 'pokes.' This message has been edited by crash827 on 06-06-2002 at 08:04 AM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.