AudioCircle
Industry Circles => Bryston Limited => Topic started by: Rod_S on 25 Aug 2014, 04:08 pm
-
Hi James, I have a few a questions about your SSP philosophy and looking into the future a bit, do see yourself going down the road in pursuit of Atmos and UHD thus bringing to market a product with something along the lines with the number of outputs say around 13.1 or more with multiple sub outs? Also where do you stand on room eq? Is that something that will never see the light of day in a Bryston product or something you would be open to in the future? When I think roboust eq I'm thinking of Dirac and Trinnov not the run of the mill Audyssey which is found in most reveivers in one form or another. I would love for Bryston to bring to market a competitor to the Datasat RS20i, not in price mind you :) but something with that kind of horse power and flexibility.
The reason why I'm asking is because I would absolutely love to add a Bryston SSP to my system but such a product must have Atmos and UHD capabilities plus a robust room eq. If Auro 3D were to gain ground then that would be another format for consideration but with Atmos entering the market now and UHD being finalized to enter the market shortly and both will probably share a similar configuration that may push Auro out before it even gets going. If such a Bryston product were to arrive I would have to have it. I continue to hold onto my old Lexicon MC-12 as there are no products in a similar price bracket on the market that really do it for me, the Bryston SP3 included and then there are products from Datasat, Theta, ADA and Trinnov that hold serious interest but are way out of my price bracket. I actually started looking at the used market for a MC-12HD just so I can get HDMI. That would hold me over until more products come onto the market.
Thanks,
Rod
-
I was thinking about this a bit more and I just realized that the for the next Bryston SSP there will probably be no choice of not going with Atmos. The new Dolby decoding chips are Atmos and since Dolby has also put to pasture Dolby Pro Logic there will not be a choice there either. So deciding not to get the new Dolby Surround for example but rather stick with ProLogic II x or z, this just won't be possible, it will be Dolby Atmos/Dolby Surround with TrueHD support. The question left for the SSP manufacturers is how many output channels do they wish to support/accommodate as Atmos does not care how many channels the system has, it's completely scalable and backwards compatible for the object based formats, i.e. Dolby Digital and TrueHD.
I was thinking it would be nice if manufacturers would leave this (i.e. the choice of out outputs) in the hands of the consumers. Granted this wouldn't be something many would do but I think Datasat might actually be able to accommodate something like this. So the Atmos consumer layout goes up to something like 26.1.10, I know there is still one LFE channel and up to 10 heights, I just can't remember off hand how many main channel beds there are, it's something between 22 and 26 I believe. So lets say manufacture x offers as standard support for 7.1.2 with say 2 additional sub outs for bass management, so that's 12 outputs built into the SSP as it ships. For expandability add on output modules could be made available with say 6 or 8 outputs per module, preferably balanced and unbalanced. These modules would simply connect to the main unit for it to see all the available outputs via perhaps a proprietary connection/cable. This way we as consumers build up the unit as we need it. Those that don't need extra channels beyond those offered by the main unit do not end up having to spend more for something they don't need while those that want/need the extra channels don't pass by the manufacturer because it wasn't able to accommodate the system they have and pay the extra for the needed module(s). Seems like a win/win to me.
Also for room EQ Lexicon had a nice approach offering separate SKU's for their MC-12's, one with EQ and one without. That might be something for Bryston to consider.
Food for thought anyways.
-
Hi Rod,
Yes I think going forward it would be a different product than the SP-3 but the SP3 would stay in the line for those that do not want the ceiling speaker requirement of ATMOS.
I can tell you now though that I will never build in Room E.Q. into any of our products. After learning as much as I have in developing the Model T Bryston speakers I am more convinced than ever that it is simply the wrong approach.
james
-
Thanks James
That's intersting I totally never thought of keeping the SP3 around in the future for just the reason you mention, good idea. I guess the tendency is to just retire the old when the new comes out but if there isn't a need to then keeping both units in the line up makes sense.
For the EQ thing, so you believe alleviating issues can be done entirely in speaker setup/choice and room treatments or at least that gets you to a point where what's left to EQ wouldn't bring any appreciable improvement either in measured in room response or actual audible improvement?
-
Thanks James
That's intersting I totally never thought of keeping the SP3 around in the future for just the reason you mention, good idea. I guess the tendency is to just retire the old when the new comes out but if there isn't a need to then keeping both units in the line up makes sense.
For the EQ thing, so you believe alleviating issues can be done entirely in speaker setup/choice and room treatments or at least that gets you to a point where what's left to EQ wouldn't bring any appreciable improvement either in measured in room response or actual audible improvement?
The problem with EQ is when you listen to a speaker you are listening to the POWER RESPONSE of the speaker not just the ON AXIS response. The power response is all the direct and reflected energy in the room mixed together and when you change the on-axis response using EQ you totally disrupt the balance between the power response and the direct on axis response of the speaker that the engineers spent countless hours making as wide and even as possible.
james
-
Well stated, James. I find my SP3 to be transparent, accurate, and engaging, with no hint of processed sound. While some may disagree with your philosophy, all should respect your conviction and integrity. After all, it's easier to plop in features that may be of at least dubious benefit but are "the next big thing" than it is to maintain one's commitment to pure sound quality. I regard my SP3 as an excellent preamplifier that just happens to do surround sound. It's a wonderful component.
Best fishes,
Rich
_____________________
Still Shakin' Napa Valley
-
I'm glad to hear the SP3 would stay around, for the time. I understand and appreciate the ATMOS concept of on-the-fly processing, as opposed to pre-mixing, the surround. If I could pick, I'd love to have the technology in my SP3 (it's coming Thursday!!) for future-proofing. But I highly doubt I'll get to add speakers to a 5.1 setup (MAYBE second sub one day, but that's it). As it stands, I'm elated that 4k pass through is supported!
From a practical point of view, I can't imagine media won't include Dolby TrueHD / DTS Master Audio embedded, even when media moves to a download-only type format. It would alienate far too many customers.
That brings up a different thought... does DTS have an up-coming competing product for Dolby ATMOS? If so, I'd imagine you'd want to wait until that is finalized too?
Would an SP3+/SP3.1/SP4 (whatever you'd call it) would move to the DACs in the BDP2 though? Could the SP3 DACs be updated (with everything else remaining the same), or are they part of the main board of the SP3?
-
...
That brings up a different thought... does DTS have an up-coming competing product for Dolby ATMOS? If so, I'd imagine you'd want to wait until that is finalized too?
...
Yes it's called dts-UHD and was actually first acknowledged back at CES with hopes to get it out this year but it's been quiet as of late so I'm skeptical if we'll see it this year. I think Q4 would be a bit of a stretch with Q1/Q2 2015 being more likely. I have no doubt it's coming it's just a matter of when. CEDIA is right around the corner so I expect there to at least be an update on timeline/availability for the Cirrus Logic chipset which is where the decoder will be fitted.
-
The problem with EQ is when you listen to a speaker you are listening to the POWER RESPONSE of the speaker not just the ON AXIS response. The power response is all the direct and reflected energy in the room mixed together and when you change the on-axis response using EQ you totally disrupt the balance between the power response and the direct on axis response of the speaker that the engineers spent countless hours making as wide and even as possible.
james
But all of that time, the countless hours, that's spent fine tuning in a fixed room or set of rooms and not out in the wild so to speak as there are just to many variables to do that so wouldn't allowing EQ in the wilderness help get the performance of the speaker back to what it was or more in line to what it's capable of like at your design facilities? I guess I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around that the performance of the speaker in the countless different rooms they would be placed in at the homes of consumers would have more similarities than differences.
-
But all of that time, the countless hours, that's spent fine tuning in a fixed room or set of rooms and not out in the wild so to speak as there are just to many variables to do that so wouldn't allowing EQ in the wilderness help get the performance of the speaker back to what it was or more in line to what it's capable of like at your design facilities? I guess I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around that the performance of the speaker in the countless different rooms they would be placed in at the homes of consumers would have more similarities than differences.
Hi Rod
There has been a lot of research on this and the Power Response is the primary influence on real speakers in real rooms. Think of the speakers radiation pattern as if it were a flood light. So you turn on the light in a dark room and you want that light to appear to the observer to be as full and as even in intensity throughout the room - no hot spots and no dull areas - just a nice even light everywhere. That would be the ideal radiation pattern.
So it does not matter what room you turn the flood light on in as the light does not care what room its in - the flood light behaves the same no matter what room.
james
-
Hi Rod,
Yes I think going forward it would be a different product than the SP-3 but the SP3 would stay in the line for those that do not want the ceiling speaker requirement of ATMOS.
I can tell you now though that I will never build in Room E.Q. into any of our products. After learning as much as I have in developing the Model T Bryston speakers I am more convinced than ever that it is simply the wrong approach.
james
Dolby Atmos FYI does not necessarily require ceiling mounted speakers. There are speaker makers getting product ready that will fire upward to bounce off the ceiling. There's some info here - http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topic/333419-official-atmos-home-theater-thread-updated-with-first-impressions/
"I was amazed in that I couldn't tell the difference between the direct firing ceiling speakers and the Dolby Atmos Enabled Speakers. Prior to the demo I thought that the Atmos Enabled Speakers were probably designed more as a work around for people who didn't want to mount speakers on the ceiling, but after listening, its not the case--I could absolutely tell when Atmos was enabled (over a conventional 7.1 mix, but couldn't tell which type of ceiling speaker they were using even when they flipped back and fourth between the two types of ceiling speakers."
-
Dolby Atmos FYI does not necessarily require ceiling mounted speakers. There are speaker makers getting product ready that will fire upward to bounce off the ceiling. There's some info here - http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topic/333419-official-atmos-home-theater-thread-updated-with-first-impressions/
"I was amazed in that I couldn't tell the difference between the direct firing ceiling speakers and the Dolby Atmos Enabled Speakers. Prior to the demo I thought that the Atmos Enabled Speakers were probably designed more as a work around for people who didn't want to mount speakers on the ceiling, but after listening, its not the case--I could absolutely tell when Atmos was enabled (over a conventional 7.1 mix, but couldn't tell which type of ceiling speaker they were using even when they flipped back and fourth between the two types of ceiling speakers."
I disagree with this and in the demos I have attended I find these add on speakers are a poor second place to properly arrayed ceiling speakers.
james
-
I was just pointing out that someone could implement Atmos without ceiling speakers and was quoting someone elses opinion.
Right now AV receivers/processors are still getting their act together on 4k video anyway. I'd personally wait until the next model year for Dolby Atmos. For my set-up, I'd add a pair of ceiling speakers to existing height channels and depending on the capabilities of the receiver/processor, I'd consider a second set of in ceiling speakers.
-
I was just pointing out that someone could implement Atmos without ceiling speakers and was quoting someone elses opinion.
Right now AV receivers/processors are still getting their act together on 4k video anyway. I'd personally wait until the next model year for Dolby Atmos. For my set-up, I'd add a pair of ceiling speakers to existing height channels and depending on the capabilities of the receiver/processor, I'd consider a second set of in ceiling speakers.
Yes it will be interesting Phil to see where this all ends up - I am a little jaded to be honest and wonder if its just another attempt to kickstart our fledgling industry by the mainstream players. Time will tell i guess.
james
-
From what I read, most of the mass market manufacturers just wanted to get 4k in their products and it probably isn't ready for prime time (at least for me) this model year. I'm sure there will also be more in-ceiling speakers with multiple drivers like these - http://www.sonance.com/home-theater/vp-cinema/in-ceiling
The implementation of upward firing speakers would not work well for me with a high (10 ft) ceiling and a quadruple tray ceiling (going up another foot) in the main room. I also have an attic above the room. For someone with 8 foot ceilings and no access it may be different. My old house had a 19 foot ceiling in the main room. I'm not sure how they are going to make upward firing speakers to fit all situations unless a separate amp is to drive them and there are level controls. It's also probably not going to be optimum for music unless I'm missing something. Except for my main system, I already have in ceiling surrounds in secondary systems (it was just easier - not better).
-
Dolby Atmos FYI does not necessarily require ceiling mounted speakers. There are speaker makers getting product ready that will fire upward to bounce off the ceiling. There's some info here - http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topic/333419-official-atmos-home-theater-thread-updated-with-first-impressions/
"I was amazed in that I couldn't tell the difference between the direct firing ceiling speakers and the Dolby Atmos Enabled Speakers. Prior to the demo I thought that the Atmos Enabled Speakers were probably designed more as a work around for people who didn't want to mount speakers on the ceiling, but after listening, its not the case--I could absolutely tell when Atmos was enabled (over a conventional 7.1 mix, but couldn't tell which type of ceiling speaker they were using even when they flipped back and fourth between the two types of ceiling speakers."
Thanks
Yeah I have been following the discussion on these on other forums as people have been getting early demos. I know they "work" :) i.e. do the job they were intended but the real way to go would be actual in ceiling. Since that's not possible or practical for most I would assume it looks like the industry saw a need for a new type of speaker and jumped. I suppose if one was desparate to get the height affect this will do the job but even then only for those with appropriate ceiling heights and designs. I suspect at the end of the day comapanies that design serious high end audiophile speakers aren't going to be lining up to add a top firing driver model to their lineup :)
I suppose the good thing about Atmos is the technology as a whole does not need heights so as Dolby retires the current chipsets in favor of Atmos all legacy setups don't have to worry about not having heights going forward as the decoder will render all objects into the speakers/channels we have presently and doesn't throw out any content.
Something else I'm curious about is when dts gets UHD out what happens with Neo:X. I wonder if they will do something similar to what Dolby did with Pro Logic and retire it or will they continue to keep it. If so I can't see how it will be compatible with UHD which will utilize true heights, one configuration won't be compatible with the other thus the customer would have to choose. If forced to choose, with Atmos already out I suspect the choice will be the one which is closest to Atmos thus overtime Neo becomes a legacy mode seldom used. This is for new setups, for existing setups already wired and fixed for Neo then those would not be able to take full advantage, in theory of UHD due to an improper setup.
-
Hi Rod
There has been a lot of research on this and the Power Response is the primary influence on real speakers in real rooms. Think of the speakers radiation pattern as if it were a flood light. So you turn on the light in a dark room and you want that light to appear to the observer to be as full and as even in intensity throughout the room - no hot spots and no dull areas - just a nice even light everywhere. That would be the ideal radiation pattern.
So it does not matter what room you turn the flood light on in as the light does not care what room its in - the flood light behaves the same no matter what room.
james
OK I get what you are saying with that, it makes sense when taken that way however I see that working only properly in a room with at least no rear wall and perhaps to the extreme no walls at all. Wouldn't the reflected light off the rear wall be interfering with the source? Same with the sides and front, the bounce back/reflections prevents the source achieving what it was designed to accomplish, at least beyond the first fraction of a second or so, the time it takes the first relfection to distort the source? Once the distortion, reflection, interferance, etc. starts it doesn't stop. Even in the design stage you would be working with a reflection back to source and tune the speaker to perform under the test sites bounce back/reflection but as soon as you move to another room the bounce back/reflection is different thus affects the source differently thus you get a different end result to the eye if we are still talking light or ear for sound.
-
OK I get what you are saying with that, it makes sense when taken that way however I see that working only properly in a room with at least no rear wall and perhaps to the extreme no walls at all. Wouldn't the reflected light off the rear wall be interfering with the source? Same with the sides and front, the bounce back/reflections prevents the source achieving what it was designed to accomplish, at least beyond the first fraction of a second or so, the time it takes the first relfection to distort the source? Once the distortion, reflection, interferance, etc. starts it doesn't stop. Even in the design stage you would be working with a reflection back to source and tune the speaker to perform under the test sites bounce back/reflection but as soon as you move to another room the bounce back/reflection is different thus affects the source differently thus you get a different end result to the eye if we are still talking light or ear for sound.
OK I hate to do this to you but the best way to answer that is to post the Bryston Philosophy of speaker design - my appology for the length. :duh:
Design Criteria for Bryston Speakers
If you like the sound of our speakers the comments below are relevant … if you do not like the sound of our speakers then the comments below are irrelevant.
It really depends on what you want the speaker to do. There are many different philosophies about how real world speakers in real world rooms should behave.
Do you want the speaker to beam the sound at the listener so there is little on and off axis energy in the polar response? Do you want a Dipole or Bi-Pole design? Do you want an Omni design etc.?
Our philosophy is discussed in detail below.
BRYSTON MODEL-T LOUDSPEAKER SYSTEM
Bryston is pleased to announce the “Model-T Loudspeaker System”.
For many years Bryston has employed a number of quality loudspeakers to assess our electronic equipment but we felt the time had come to develop our own reference grade loudspeaker system. The Bryston Model T loudspeaker was designed to meet the challenge of a North American designed and manufactured world class reference loudspeaker.
We embarked on this loudspeaker journey with Axiom Audio with very demanding requirements to exceed my current reference speakers. Originally, only one pair of these loudspeakers were going to be developed as my personal reference loudspeakers. However, the Bryston distributors, dealers, and clients expressed a strong interest to bring a Bryston loudspeaker to market that would be competitively priced.
The initial design was an expensive and complex active design using a Digital Signal Processing (DSP), six channels of amplification, and a myriad of cables. Much effort was used to get to a performance level that met our requirements. Interestingly, Dealer & client feedback requested a passive version that could be powered by a two channels of amplification. So, the Model T (Passive) loudspeaker was developed.
Considerable effort was put forth in new driver design, enclosure vibration analysis, crossover refinement, anechoic chamber testing, and countless hours of listening tests. Blind listening tests were routinely performed with the Model T and today’s highly regarded and expensive loudspeakers. We invite you to bring your favorite music to your local authorized Bryston dealer to give them a serious listen and let me know what you think.
BACKGROUND:
The two most critical parts of any loudspeaker system choice is the listening ‘ROOM’ and the loudspeakers‘POLAR’ response. Recognizing how the room imposes its boundaries (floor, ceiling, walls) on the speaker and how that speaker radiates its energy (polar response) into a specific room is critical to the understanding of the overall performance of any speaker and it is no different for the Bryston Model T loudspeaker.
When you are listening to a loudspeaker in a room you are always listening to a balance between the ‘Direct Sound’ and the ‘Reflected Sound’ from the boundaries of the room – this is called the ‘Power Response or Sound Power.’ It is that balance between direct and reflected energy which changes depending on the frequency radiation pattern (polar response) of the given speaker and the boundaries of the room the speaker is placed in. Dipoles, Bipolar, Omnipoles, Direct Radiators, Horns etc. all behave differently due to their specific radiation patterns and therefore exhibit different power responses in any specific room. Bryston has chosen a direct radiator approach in the design of the Model-T loudspeaker for numerous reasons but one critical reason is because we feel it is currently the best way to accomplish the correct balance between direct and reflected energy in real world listening rooms.
DIRECT and RELECTED SOUND:
The ‘direct sound’ is the sound radiating from the front of the loudspeaker and the ‘reflected sound’ is all the sound your ears perceive after the sound waves have interacted with all the different boundaries in the room. It is important given real world conditions that the on axis response and the off axis frequency response of a loudspeaker be as uniform as possible. This on and off axis characteristic is generally referred to as Polar response. The smoother and more uniform the on and off axis polar response of the speaker the better the tonal balance between the direct sound and the reflected sound will be. In other words, the reflected sound will have the same overall tonal balance and sonic characteristics as the direct sound if ‘on and off’ polar response is smooth and even. This approach also provides the optimum overall 3-dimensional soundstage presentation as well. The Bryston Model-T is a very wide dispersion design so the polar response is very flat on axis and very uniform all the way out to more than 45 degrees off axis in both directions from center to provide a very wide and even listening window.
LISTENING WINDOW and SOUND POWER:
In a loudspeaker the ‘listening window’ is an average of a front set of curves whereas the ‘sound power response’ is an average of all the curves right around the whole speaker. What we actually hear seems heavily weighted to be a balance between these two conditions. The listening windows frequency response should be very linear (flat) across the entire audio band but the sound power should fall off by 8 – 10dB by the time you get to 10kHz (see diagram below) while still remaining linear in its march down from the bass frequencies.
Striking the proper balance between these two is extremely important to the sound of the speaker. Keeping the listening window and the sound power both linear is not an easy task and is where most speakers fall down.
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=104474)
Typical Model-T Passive Anechoic Response
Typically there is a lot of attention paid to the linearity of the direct on-axis frequency response by reviewers and knowledgeable consumers but it is really just one curve in the mix of 64 curves Bryston utilized in the design the Bryston Model T passive loudspeaker.
PASSIVE CROSSOVER:
The passive crossover in a loudspeaker provides the correct frequency response, levels, roll-off slopes, phase etc. to the different drivers (woofers, midranges, tweeters). The crossover uses very sophisticated parts that allow for very precise tailoring and control over each of the drivers. This attention to details in the crossover provides the utmost in spatial and depth imaging performance as well as overall realism. Proper application of the integration of the drivers/crossover and box is critical in determining uniformity of the speaker’s output in all directions (power response). The crossover the drivers and the cabinet all work in tandem and cannot be designed independently. The Model-P crossover is meticulously engineered to achieve extreme tonal neutrality and is constructed with extensive use of high quality components. The result is astonishing clarity, transparency, and true three-dimensional realism.
CUSTOM DRIVERS:
All the drivers in the Bryston Model-Tspeaker are custom made. The advantage of custom made drivers is you can design the driver to do a specific job in a specific cabinet with a specific crossover. Many loudspeaker manufacturers use off the shelf commercially available drivers but that severely restricts their design options because the manufacturer has to design around the specific drivers characteristics. We have developed our drivers to be part of the overall design window and have integrated them with the crossovers and cabinet in a way not possible with off the shelf components. We use cast baskets, substantial magnet assemblies and custom motor systems in all our woofers and midrange drivers.
CABINET:
The cabinet plays an enormously important role in the quality of music reproduction, and so the engineering of the cabinet incorporates several innovations that contribute to the speaker’s stunning clarity, its utter tonal neutrality and its exceptionally realistic imaging. Another task the cabinet must perform is to allow the sound from the drivers to radiate freely without encountering cabinet edges or cavities that will diffract some of the energy, causing interference and delayed sounds that produce tonal colorations and obscure spatial information.
The Model-T cabinet is made from a high quality MDF and precisely constructed in our Canadian manufacturing facility. The cabinet was designed with exceptional attention to reducing cabinet resonances. You want the cabinet to be as inert as possible so that only the drivers are contributing to the sound emanating from the speaker. Bracing in the correct areas is critical and contrary to popular belief you can easily end up with improper bracing – too much or not enough. Everything vibrates or has a natural resonance at which it will vibrate and the ear is much more sensitive to higher frequency vibrations as opposed to lower frequency vibrations. The general thought is the more bracing the better but it actually doesn’t work quite that way. There are two things to be cognitive of in brace design. One is that you can actually increase the SPL of the “cabinet output” if you put the wrong number of braces in the wrong place and the other is that as you add braces you will increase the frequency of the “cabinet output” which at some point, even though the SPL will likely be substantially lower, the cabinet output will become audible because we humans far more sensitive to noise at higher frequencies. So measuring and optimizing at what frequency vibration occurs and at what amplitude is critical to producing as resonant a free cabinet as possible
The Model-T cabinet is shaped and contoured to provide the practical elimination of diffracted driver energy from the driver’s specific dispersion characteristics and to reduce or eliminate any internal standing waves in the loudspeaker cabinet. Less vibration contributes to greater clarity, while the absence of diffraction allows for very open, box-less reproduction. The cabinet sides achieve great stiffness by a construction of shaped panels and bracing using accelerometers to measure precise movements and bracing them appropriately to reduce resonances. This construction preserves the nuances and delicacy of the music by reducing unwanted sonic artifacts that would otherwise obscure musical detail.
UNIT TO UNIT MATCHING:
One of the critical requirements for creating a quality three-dimension image in your room is that each and every loudspeaker must be synchronized as much as possible to one another in all aspects of their performance. Small variances in performance from unit to unit can inhibit the audio systems ability to place
instruments in the proper location and create a believable soundstage where the speakers disappear and the performance fills the room with a convincing performance. We take great care in making sure this continuity is maintained for each and every loudspeaker we manufacture.
ANACHOIC CHAMBER:
Our speaker design and manufacturing facility has a very unique advantage – an on-site ‘anechoic chamber’. Anechoic chambers are reflection free rooms and are used by the superior speaker manufactures to do all the loudspeaker testing in an environment where early reflections and outside noise issues are eliminated from the measurement curve(s). Anechoic cambers are very, very expensive to build but they are invaluable when designing a quality loudspeaker. Measurements can be made showing exactly how the on and off polar response of the speaker is performing, cabinet resonances due to improper bracing are easily measured with accelerometers, driver abnormalities and resonances are easily detected etc. It allows one to move in a constructive direction in a calculated manner because it brings to the forefront many of the discontinuities not necessarily obvious with other test methods. The Bryston Model-T speakers were meticulously designed utilizing the factory anechoic chamber and then fine-tuned and adjusted utilizing blind listening tests to provide our customers with as accurate a loudspeaker as is currently obtainable.
DYNAMIC COMPRESSION:
One of the major issues with many speakers is ‘dynamic compression.” In the real world if you hear a loud (dynamic) sound like a gun-shot or a back-fire or a scream etc. there is a huge dynamic range associated with the sound. Many speakers, especially small 2-way or 3-way speaker’s are terrific for what they do but many fall short trying to recreate the huge dynamics necessary to produce the kind of sound pressure levels needed to reproduce these huge volume swings in your listening room. With the Bryston Model-T loudspeaker one of the foremost priorities was to create a speaker that could truly reproduce these real world dynamics without compression. In our opinion, utilizing multiple drivers in a vertical array was the best way to achieve this goal.
SUMMING UP:
A ‘state of the art’ audio system involves what some refer to as a “suspension of disbelief”, which means that the playback system transcends the recorded medium and transports you to a live venue. You forget it’s a recording and believe you are there at the live performance.
Our goal with the Bryston Model-T Passive loudspeaker system was to provide our customers with a superior level of ‘disbelief’.
James Tanner
-
I don't know if this helped me or not with respect to the benefit or detriment of EQ...Let me think about it for a bit :)
-
I don't know if this helped me or not with respect to the benefit or detriment of EQ...Let me think about it for a bit :)
Hi Rod,
I guess I am being a little wordy but the point is in my opinion changing the direct sound from the speaker by manipulating the frequency response using EQ or Room correction totally defeats the whole point of the design of our speakers.
Rod this is only my opinion others may feel differently.
james
-
Hi Rod,
I guess I am being a little wordy but the point is in my opinion changing the direct sound from the speaker by manipulating the frequency response using EQ or Room correction totally defeats the whole point of the design of our speakers.
Rod this is only my opinion others may feel differently.
james
No worries, I know it's your opinion. I'm not just thinking of Bryston speakers being used with a Bryston SSP I'm also thinking of a Bryston SSP being used with non Bryston speakers because that will probably be the majority percentage wise in reality. I do get though even with non Bryston speakers the manufacturers design their speaker to perform a certain way and EQ then gets used by the consumer to change that in home.
So let me throw this out there, say you do a test of the frequency response of the room using REW or some such software and find there are some large dips at certain frequency ranges in the room and one happens to be at the MLP. You can't move the chair, sofa, etc. so the performance of the speaker is going to be compromised at that location isn't it? Setting aside room treatments for the moment wouldn't it be nice to have the ability to eliminate those inconsistencies so the speaker is no longer compromised because in it's design it wasn't built with a drop off at these frequences so wouldn't eliniating that be a good thing allowing the speaker to behave "normally"? I suppose ideally the user would have the measurement chart for the speaker and with a powerful enough EQ make the adjustments manually to align as bestas possible to the chart rather than say strive for a perfectly flat in room response via auto EQ which the speaker couldn't achieve on it's own anyways.
-
No worries, I know it's your opinion. I'm not just thinking of Bryston speakers being used with a Bryston SSP I'm also thinking of a Bryston SSP being used with non Bryston speakers because that will probably be the majority percentage wise in reality. I do get though even with non Bryston speakers the manufacturers design their speaker to perform a certain way and EQ then gets used by the consumer to change that in home.
So let me throw this out there, say you do a test of the frequency response of the room using REW or some such software and find there are some large dips at certain frequency ranges in the room and one happens to be at the MLP. You can't move the chair, sofa, etc. so the performance of the speaker is going to be compromised at that location isn't it? Setting aside room treatments for the moment wouldn't it be nice to have the ability to eliminate those inconsistencies so the speaker is no longer compromised because in it's design it wasn't built with a drop off at these frequences so wouldn't eliniating that be a good thing allowing the speaker to behave "normally"? I suppose ideally the user would have the measurement chart for the speaker and with a powerful enough EQ make the adjustments manually to align as bestas possible to the chart rather than say strive for a perfectly flat in room response via auto EQ which the speaker couldn't achieve on it's own anyways.
The problem is that you can change the frequency response at the listeners location but it screws things up everywhere else in the room.
james
-
When I set up my old room in the old house, I used my 1/3 Octave RTA and a test disc as well. I found a problem from the listening position with a peak between 125-130Hz. I purchased a barrel shaped (2x4 foot) diffuser from Acoustics First that was made to treat problems centered on 125Hz. The room was large (perhaps around 7,000 cubic feet) and opened into other spaces. The first thing I do is measure and then try to treat any bad room problems. I can see situations where it is easier, cheaper and faster to use equalization built in (not to mention I live alone and don't have problems adding speakers or treatments). Many moons ago (like 35 years when I was 6 of course :green:) when I had my first separates, I had a Phase Linear parametric equalizer and found it useful. Of course, I was less educated about room treatments back then and the main goal was bad bass boom (and I had an old Dahlquist subwoofer and electronic crossover at one point too) in the room and tape hiss and the product worked nicely. My thoughts at this point that if possible I prefer less circuitry in the signal path (and I had a friend back then who was perplexed by the way I had components to deliver clean sound and many devices to massage the signal at the same time). Before multi-channel I had time delays so I could hear a jazz combo in a small club. Before stereo TV, I had a Pioneer hi-fidelity (dual mono) TV tuner. I had one house built wired for surround sound just before Dolby was commonplace in components (and the builder thought I was crazy). I can also see people who have existing speakers they intend to keep but may not be up to the Bryston design standards and equalization being useful to them.
-
The problem is that you can change the frequency response at the listeners location but it screws things up everywhere else in the room.
james
Yes, the better you make the frequency response at one location the poorer it gets at all other locations. Also the better you make the sustain response the poorer the transient response gets and vice versa.
-
Yes, the better you make the frequency response at one location the poorer it gets at all other locations. Also the better you make the sustain response the poorer the transient response gets and vice versa.
Hi Speedskater
So I have you as an ally in this discussion :icon_lol:
james
-
Hi Rod,
Here is an example of what we call the Family of Curves. They are a slice of a few of the measurements we make in the anechoic chamber to see what is happening on and off axis in a 360 degree arc both horizontally and vertically around the speaker. The crossovers and driver selection and cabinet shape and construction all come into play to make sure these curves are as uniform as possible. If you alter any of them using EQ you disrupt all the others.
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=104524)
-
The new DSP processor units are getting smarter about making reasonable EQ decisions (but just how smart, I don't know).
The worst case scenario is the home theater buff who use's a 32 channel EQ on his woofers & sub-woofers.
And then boasts about his system response to a small fraction of a dB.
-
Hi Rod,
Here is an example of what we call the Family of Curves. They are a slice of a few of the measurements we make in the anechoic chamber to see what is happening on and off axis in a 360 degree arc both horizontally and vertically around the speaker. The crossovers and driver selection and cabinet shape and construction all come into play to make sure these curves are as uniform as possible. If you alter any of them using EQ you disrupt all the others.
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=104524)
That diagram is reminiscent of structural stability calculations I get in some FEM programs. Nice!
The Bryston dealer here doesn't carry your speakers so I will have to ask them about that.
But speaking of technology, 3D TV was a spectacular failure when it comes to TV sales. Atmos is yet another catch-phrase used to uplift a stagnating market. With tablets and everything else, people spend less time together sitting in a living room watching TV. Everbody is watching something else on their tablets. So perhaps the future of surround sound is in headphones. The most expensive hi-fi asset most of the time is space. A thousand Euro for a square meter of space... and how could the majority of people possibly be able to afford a dedicated TV saloon or a music room? Not many. This is why Atmos is ridiculous. There is no way people will sacrifice that little space they have in their homes to install additional speakers. At least that seems to be the case in most western European countries. We in Croatia are still traditionalists with big houses and I suppose people in North America are too but I hardly see myself buying a set of dozen speakers and a kilometer of cable for the two hours a week I'd be sitting in front of a TV watching a movie.
I'd rather like to see those manufacturers make things that would finally benefit all of us like improvements in the efficiency of solar panels, electrical transmission systems, water purification plants and medical equipment.
-
The problem is that you can change the frequency response at the listeners location but it screws things up everywhere else in the room.
james
Ah yes, I suppose that would be a problem but I guess that assumes the EQ is not sophisticated enough to make adjustments for multiple locations. In all honesty I would be perfectly fine with just the MLP being setup properly because if I'm not at the MLP then I'm not doing any critical listening, anything being watched or listened to then becomes more background music, etc. but I see how that might, might be a concern for those with a multiple seat setup and are obsessive about every position being equal. This is certainly something that couldn't be accomplished with video i.e. being off center so I see the same limitation as acceptable in audio.
-
Hi Rod,
Here is an example of what we call the Family of Curves. They are a slice of a few of the measurements we make in the anechoic chamber to see what is happening on and off axis in a 360 degree arc both horizontally and vertically around the speaker. The crossovers and driver selection and cabinet shape and construction all come into play to make sure these curves are as uniform as possible. If you alter any of them using EQ you disrupt all the others.
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=104524)
Yep, I can certainly understand the concern there. My argument would be, take those speakers, throw them in some random room, perform the measurements and you end up with a few of the frequencies wildly outside the norm or what would have been unacceptable in the lab. If you had a sophisticated enough e.q. that had the ability to bring just those frequencies back in line I know I would like to be able to do that assuming it's not done at the expense of the others. Baring that the speakers aren't performing their best thus you have to be comfortable knowing they could be better.
-
Hi Rod
Well it appears I am not winning you over :icon_lol: but it is not just the frequency response that is being affected. Here is another source on the subject that sets up studios and custom home theaters just to add some controversy:
“Active room control, flatly stated, does not work. Never did..never will. Simple rules of physics vs the human hearing function. The very idea and execution...basically...retards the reproduced sound that emanates from the speakers in such a way that it bears little resemblance to what was recorded on the disk. I've also seen active room control devices blow drivers. The room must fundamentally be corrected via acoustic treatment FIRST....and then MAYBE some small amount of active control may, I repeat -may be utilized.
This is not a rant against active control systems...merely a fact.
If your particular room does not allow for proper acoustic treatment, then fix the room, or move into another one. Ultimately, as one's understanding of what is actually going on in a given actively eq'd system -one that is involved in electronically manipulating the output of said system for 'room correction'-, one will come to the seemingly startling revelation that they simply don't work.
The source of the problem is that the reflective time smear characteristics of the room 'issues' remains intact, and the direct radiator sound source is being retarded to compensate for this. Thus the result is a time smeared mess where the issues remain, and the original source is destroyed.
This is about as completely, irrevocably, bass-ackwards as one can get. The only thing it is good for, is if you aren't actually listening to your system. Great for pro ambient environments or large auditoriums but they don't work in a serious two channel or serious HT system.
Point of all is, if you really care about great sound, fix your room and forget about EQ. Having fixed my own room with some professional help, I am a firm believer that about 50% of what you hear is the room and the rest is your equipment. “When you put Bryston and a quality speaker in a well designed room, it is nothing short of awesome.”
-
Ah yes, I suppose that would be a problem but I guess that assumes the EQ is not sophisticated enough to make adjustments for multiple locations.
Well with only two speakers it can't make multiple different location adjustments. But the new DSP processor units are getting much smarter about making compromises for multiple locations.
-
Hi Rod
Well it appears I am not winning you over :icon_lol: but it is not just the frequency response that is being affected. Here is another source on the subject that sets up studios and custom home theaters just to add some controversy:
“Active room control, flatly stated, does not work. Never did..never will. Simple rules of physics vs the human hearing function. The very idea and execution...basically...retards the reproduced sound that emanates from the speakers in such a way that it bears little resemblance to what was recorded on the disk. I've also seen active room control devices blow drivers. The room must fundamentally be corrected via acoustic treatment FIRST....and then MAYBE some small amount of active control may, I repeat -may be utilized.
This is not a rant against active control systems...merely a fact.
If your particular room does not allow for proper acoustic treatment, then fix the room, or move into another one. Ultimately, as one's understanding of what is actually going on in a given actively eq'd system -one that is involved in electronically manipulating the output of said system for 'room correction'-, one will come to the seemingly startling revelation that they simply don't work.
The source of the problem is that the reflective time smear characteristics of the room 'issues' remains intact, and the direct radiator sound source is being retarded to compensate for this. Thus the result is a time smeared mess where the issues remain, and the original source is destroyed.
This is about as completely, irrevocably, bass-ackwards as one can get. The only thing it is good for, is if you aren't actually listening to your system. Great for pro ambient environments or large auditoriums but they don't work in a serious two channel or serious HT system.
Point of all is, if you really care about great sound, fix your room and forget about EQ. Having fixed my own room with some professional help, I am a firm believer that about 50% of what you hear is the room and the rest is your equipment. “When you put Bryston and a quality speaker in a well designed room, it is nothing short of awesome.”
So James so your going to add those funny little gimmicky cubes to the top of your speakers to support ATMOS instead of making a processor that will provide ATMOS
-
Hi Rod
Well it appears I am not winning you over :icon_lol: but it is not just the frequency response that is being affected. Here is another source on the subject that sets up studios and custom home theaters just to add some controversy:
“Active room control, flatly stated, does not work. Never did..never will. Simple rules of physics vs the human hearing function. The very idea and execution...basically...retards the reproduced sound that emanates from the speakers in such a way that it bears little resemblance to what was recorded on the disk. I've also seen active room control devices blow drivers. The room must fundamentally be corrected via acoustic treatment FIRST....and then MAYBE some small amount of active control may, I repeat -may be utilized.
This is not a rant against active control systems...merely a fact.
If your particular room does not allow for proper acoustic treatment, then fix the room, or move into another one. Ultimately, as one's understanding of what is actually going on in a given actively eq'd system -one that is involved in electronically manipulating the output of said system for 'room correction'-, one will come to the seemingly startling revelation that they simply don't work.
The source of the problem is that the reflective time smear characteristics of the room 'issues' remains intact, and the direct radiator sound source is being retarded to compensate for this. Thus the result is a time smeared mess where the issues remain, and the original source is destroyed.
This is about as completely, irrevocably, bass-ackwards as one can get. The only thing it is good for, is if you aren't actually listening to your system. Great for pro ambient environments or large auditoriums but they don't work in a serious two channel or serious HT system.
Point of all is, if you really care about great sound, fix your room and forget about EQ. Having fixed my own room with some professional help, I am a firm believer that about 50% of what you hear is the room and the rest is your equipment. “When you put Bryston and a quality speaker in a well designed room, it is nothing short of awesome.”
You are certainly giving it a good try though so I commend you for that :thumb: :green:
So I actually agree with the part about the room, adding room treatments and moving to a different location if the room sucks but the reality is I would say 90%+ of all people with audio systems have those systems in a common room where adding room treatments is not practical much less moving the gear to another room. So in those cases that would only see EQ being used as a last resort the EQ then becomes the only thing one has to work with. I can certainly see the cons now in trying to achieve a flat frequency response and if we get back to your speakers for a moment, in this case the ideal use of the EQ would be to try and get the troubled frequencies back in line, not necessarily flat. This would of course require someone knowledgeable with using EQ rather than just hitting the obligatory "play" for the common auto EQ we see so much of today which in most cases strive for that flat frequency response.
In my listening I often turn the EQ and all processing off in my system especially for high resolution music and there is an obvious difference in the sound, night and day in fact. For movies the processing and EQ are always on to provide bass management, etc.
-
So James so your going to add those funny little gimmicky cubes to the top of your speakers to support ATMOS instead of making a processor that will provide ATMOS
Hi Mav52
No I will not be doing funny cubes :icon_lol: but you still need the processor to do ATMOS whether you have 'Ceiling Speakers' or 'Funny Cubes'.
james
-
You are certainly giving it a good try though so I commend you for that :thumb: :green:
So I actually agree with the part about the room, adding room treatments and moving to a different location if the room sucks but the reality is I would say 90%+ of all people with audio systems have those systems in a common room where adding room treatments is not practical much less moving the gear to another room. So in those cases that would only see EQ being used as a last resort the EQ then becomes the only thing one has to work with. I can certainly see the cons now in trying to achieve a flat frequency response and if we get back to your speakers for a moment, in this case the ideal use of the EQ would be to try and get the troubled frequencies back in line, not necessarily flat. This would of course require someone knowledgeable with using EQ rather than just hitting the obligatory "play" for the common auto EQ we see so much of today which in most cases strive for that flat frequency response.
In my listening I often turn the EQ and all processing off in my system especially for high resolution music and there is an obvious difference in the sound, night and day in fact. For movies the processing and EQ are always on to provide bass management, etc.
One of the points I should have stressed about our speaker designs is that because the on and off axis frequency response and power response is very wide and very uniform you do not have to get into excessive after market room treatments. In fact normal rooms with typical carpets, drapes, furnishing etc. work very well indeed with our designs. There are scientific reasons why this occurs based on the way or ears and brain interpret sound - both direct and reflected.
james
-
Hi Mav52
No I will not be doing funny cubes :icon_lol: but you still need the processor to do ATMOS whether you have 'Ceiling Speakers' or 'Funny Cubes'.
james
Thanks James,, that's my feelings as well.. Forget speaker gimmicks and let the designed processor do what it's supposed to do which means you can use whatever speaker you want.
regarding the Sp3, will that unit handle DSD in it's audio section via it's USB port ?
-
Thanks James,, that's my feelings as well.. Forget speaker gimmicks and let the designed processor do what it's supposed to do which means you can use whatever speaker you want.
regarding the Sp3, will that unit handle DSD in it's audio section via it's USB port ?
Hi
No DSD requires a completely different process on the USB in the SP3
James
-
All my gear is in the common room near a large salt water fish tank, with electric filter/cooler pumps and other stuff making a racket (next to the right speaker), and there're two cats chasing each-other around and there's an ugly, big 'designer' table in the way, that the wife would kill me if I throw it to another room.
In the eye of an audiophile, this is totally messed up but I can live with it because this is my house and this is exactly how the things are placed. And I trust that the speaker and other gear designers already figured their gears won't be used in the perfect sound lab environment and already made necessary design adjustments, so why add another layer of distortion by fiddling with the EQ (especially software ones )? :scratch: in my opinion room EQ is a distorted sound that seemingly sounds better, like plastic surgery...nice but still fake and will bite you back in some way...
Just my 2 pennies :green:
-
According to a news blurb on cdrinfo.com, Paramount and Warner Bros. studios are going to release Bluray movies this year with Dolby Atmos soundtracks via Dolby TrueHD. And the important part (to me at least): they will be backwards compatible. So it doesn't seem like they'll try to make the current encoding schemes obsolete anytime soon. :thumb:
I always figured that was the case, but its nice to see something somewhat official.
"Dolby Atmos soundtracks are backward compatible, meaning they’ll play on traditional home entertainment playback systems."
Source link: http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=41519