Wideband Speakers

[desktop]

Although I hate the entire concept of "my audio expert is righter than your audio expert" I will start a thread here called "wideband listening" and I will use references. My opinion is that everyone should do 2 things to quantify their listening opinions; 1) get their hearing tested as a base reference, 2) they should go out to facilities (like retailers) who offer wideband loudspeaker systems with phase alignment, AND LISTEN TO THEM. Then I'd like to continue the discussion, based on what we have heard or not heard.

I always found that listening with my own ears was better than having anyone tell me what things are supposed to sound like "according to whoever". I was personally shocked by how well and much the 17,000 students tested in an ad campaign, actually were able to hear, in conditions that were very good, but not assigned. Of course, in this test, I was more interested in finding out whether extended high frequencies, as designed into ESS loudspeakers (now a similar loudspeaker/ultra-tweeter is made by AMT loudspeakers) was going to get votes as sounding "better" compared to all the other cone, horn, midrange-only (have to list Bose hear for completeness although their concept paper is not at all logical), or other designs.

Of course this was during 1977/1978 that the ESS test was done. The best part is that the ESS test found out so much more than the fact that wideband loudspeakers sounded better than non-wideband loudspeakers. But that will be for another AES paper of mine. Out of a crowd of 1400 people when I gave my own AES paper, only about 70 people actually understood the 'new-ish" concept I was proposing. I did get a standing ovation from those contingencies but I felt that to a great extent my paper fell on deaf ears.

No worries. I made a million dollars on the un-usable science I learned while doing the ESS test, plus the EPCOT/Tokyo DIsneyland test. What others threw away as unusable to their projects, I turned into something of value.

But because referencing seems to be more important than listening to some people, I will start the other thread. Then I will come back and try to answer any non-who's-paper-says what questions that have been posed here in a simple format I can reply to directly.

[Whitneyville]

I used to ride motorscooters with the general manager of the biggest A/V house in town, and he's let me borrow, on many occasions, matched pairs of studio mics (at least 12 brands) worth more than my house. I too have taken them to my church and recorded myself doing clarinet special numbers with my big-ol' TEAC@15IPS with DBX. I still can't hear my keys click or my pads slap or my fingers "pop" over the tone holes, which I can assure you, the clarinet player five down from you in a 168 piece symphonic band (yes, there IS such a thing) can clearly hear when the brass is playing FFF. Ya'll match not knows 'bout ol' times Assembly O' God Churches where I's backed by a piano, bass, pedal steel, rhythm gee-tar, 'lectric gee-tar, trap-set, and Hammond B-3 w/Leslie, but I can front that without any re-enforcement by the PA, and be heard OUTSIDE the front doors not of the sanctuary, but of the foyer (45 more feet and another set of doors). This with the lungs of a 95 year-old. Give me a tenor sax and I can blow the doors off the "youth group's" "Jesus Rock" annex over their giga-watts of PA, and I've showed them a couple of times too. No mic I've tried gives the "bite" of my Otto Lincs "wide-open" sax mouthpiece, and it's a "honker". I don't know how much is still equipment and how much is operator trouble, but I haven't thought we've been getting our money's worth in audio media for 40+ years.

[avole]

Although I hate the entire concept of "my audio expert is righter than your audio expert" I will start a thread here called "wideband listening" and I will use references. My opinion is that everyone should do 2 things to quantify their listening opinions; 1) get their hearing tested as a base reference, 2) they should go out to facilities (like retailers) who offer wideband loudspeaker systems with phase alignment, AND LISTEN TO THEM. Then I'd like to continue the discussion, based on what we have heard or not heard.

I always found that listening with my own ears was better than having anyone tell me what things are supposed to sound like "according to whoever". I was personally shocked by how well and much the 17,000 students tested in an ad campaign, actually were able to hear, in conditions that were very good, but not assigned. Of course, in this test, I was more interested in finding out whether extended high frequencies, as designed into ESS loudspeakers (now a similar loudspeaker/ultra-tweeter is made by AMT loudspeakers) was going to get votes as sounding "better" compared to all the other cone, horn, midrange-only (have to list Bose hear for completeness although their concept paper is not at all logical), or other designs.

Of course this was during 1977/1978 that the ESS test was done. The best part is that the ESS test found out so much more than the fact that wideband loudspeakers sounded better than non-wideband loudspeakers. But that will be for another AES paper of mine. Out of a crowd of 1400 people when I gave my own AES paper, only about 70 people actually understood the 'new-ish" concept I was proposing. I did get a standing ovation from those contingencies but I felt that to a great extent my paper fell on deaf ears.

No worries. I made a million dollars on the un-usable science I learned while doing the ESS test, plus the EPCOT/Tokyo DIsneyland test. What others threw away as unusable to their projects, I turned into something of value.

But because referencing seems to be more important than listening to some people, I will start the other thread. Then I will come back and try to answer any non-who's-paper-says what questions that have been posed here in a simple format I can reply to directly.

So you refuse to answer my question.

That says it all, really.

[avole]

For those who are interested, there's a good paper on human hearing at:

http://media.paisley.ac.uk/~campbell/AA ... earing.PDF

This also covers frequency ranges of the various musical instruments, and the human voice. Interesting to note the author's comments on the 20hz lower limit.

[Ldg]

Although I hate the entire concept of "my audio expert is righter than your audio expert" I will start a thread here called "wideband listening" and I will use references.

This is the third thread hop you've initiated on this topic, desktop. It's obsfucating the lack of your answer to Werner's entirely reasonable request for you to disclose the author/date/title of the AES publication you refer to in the original thread. Which paper, IIRC, was the stated basis of your opinion and claims for ultrasonic human hearing in air, and which AFIAK has never been shown. And which, according to your claim, has a verifiable experimental process one can try, IIRC.

Why don't you simply disclose name/title/date of that AES paper, desktop ? In absentia, this is a goose chase. And not a very credible one at that !

[fscl]

desktop,

There are 2 versions of the Tannoy, with and without DSP.

Which are the ones you listen to / use......

If not the DSP, does the signal processing adversely effect the sound.....

TIA.

Fred