[Nuance]

I'm not quite sure where we disagree here, Tyson.  In the end the only important factor is one's happiness with their own system, which we both seem to agree with.  Who cares how we achieve that happiness so as long as we make it there?  My point was simply that live music isn't everyone's reference, and that the new reference is based more on accurately reproducing the recording.  As you and I both pointed out, though, achieving that accuracy isn't going to be beneficial for every recording, thus it can be a very bad thing.  I'd much rather start with an extremely accurate pair of speakers, electronics, etc, then tweak the sound to my liking from that point.  "Accuracy" means different things to different people, though, so...  I also never implied solid state was better than tube, or vice versa for that matter.  I actually prefer tubes to be in the preamp and then paired with a SS amp, as bass control just sounds better to my ears with said setup.  To each their own, though. 

[Tyson]

Nuance, I think we agree for the most part too.  Audio is a lot like another passion of mine - cooking!  To make a great meal is like putting together a great system - Gotta start off with quality ingredients

[Nuance]

Nuance, I think we agree for the most part too.  Audio is a lot like another passion of mine - cooking!  To make a great meal is like putting together a great system - Gotta start off with quality ingredients

Haha - indeed.  Although, I just don't have the patience for taking up cooking.  Props to you for sticking with it!

[Quiet Earth]

I have to respectfully disagree with this :

 

But lets look at your studio produced pop/rock albums.  Most people will admit that the vast majority of recordings are pretty average, if not downright poor.  In this case, the recording itself (by being less than optimal) is a hinderance to appreciating the music.

I can't imagine that I'm the only one here that thinks 99% of his non classical record collection sounds terrific.

[Russell Dawkins]

I can't imagine that I'm the only one here that thinks 99% of his non classical record collection sounds terrific.

You might at least be in the minority! 

[Nuance]

I have to respectfully disagree with this :

 
I can't imagine that I'm the only one here that thinks 99% of his non classical record collection sounds terrific.

The majority of my stuff sounds amazing too, but I wouldn't say 99% of it; more like 80%.

[Quiet Earth]

Ok, I have not calculated it to the exact number, but you guys get the point. I like almost everything that I have. I can't recall the last time I took a record off because the sound was destroyed by some evil recording engineer.

I guess I am also surprised that people still enjoy blaming the recording personnel for bad recordings when in most cases there is really nothing wrong with those recordings at all. Oh well, maybe I really am in the minority.

[Tyson]

You guys need to hang out in the Bryston forum more, so you can hear them all go on and on about how "revealing" their amps are of their system's "flaws", and how they can now hear how bad their recordings sound!

[*Scotty*]

I don't hold the recording engineer entirely responsible for the "sound" the recording has when I listen to it on my home system. Many times the recording engineer is a hired gun who only follows orders and is not solely responsible for the how a recording sounds. If I don't like what I hear I blame the producer and the people in the marketing department who decided to equalize a cut on the album or the entire album for radio airplay. AM being the worst offender closely followed by FM.

 Imagine how a lot of the pop music from the sixties and seventies could sound if it hadn't been mixed and equalized for the 6X9 speaker in the dash of your 1965 Buick.
Many times I put a pop album on from that era and realize that there is only just so much information to be had off of the record and it is what is. Multiple overdubs, tape saturation, mixing and equalization decisions, all operate against an ideal outcome. Especially when the recording is listened to some fifty years later on a low distortion, wide bandwidth system with flat frequency response. Many times this is a mis-match made in hell.
Scotty

[Nuance]

You guys need to hang out in the Bryston forum more, so you can hear them all go on and on about how "revealing" their amps are of their system's "flaws", and how they can now hear how bad their recordings sound!

LOL - nice.

[JohnR]

Interesting thread imo, some people call it 'trolling' if you don't agree with them or don't consider their input the 'definitive answer'.

What about DSP and other electronic methods,  as you mentioned, some might say it is actually a more sophisticated and controllable method to add the desired dimension effect to sound reproduction than OB speakers?

It's only as controllable as all the other variables being discussed here. You would need to choose and position speakers and room treatment just as much, but with different goals. Toole would I believe suggest that the best way to accomplish it is with multi-channel. However there is also the multichannel ambiophonic synthesizer that would be interesting to try.

[JohnR]

"Accuracy" means different things to different people, though, so...

When it comes to speakers, it's not clearly defined, and so beyond a certain point, fairly meaningless. Why? Because the "recording" doesn't specify which directions a loudspeaker shall radiate which frequencies in - you can't be "true to the recording" about something that the recording has nothing to say about. The desirable properties established by research were mentioned earlier, but there's a lot of room to move....

[Bob in St. Louis]

You guys need to hang out in the Bryston forum more, so you can hear them all go on and on about how "revealing" their amps are of their system's "flaws", and how they can now hear how bad their recordings sound!

Hmm....Interesting. 
The forums I like to hang around talk about how the equipment has "re-invented" or "re-introduced" them to their music collection.
It's a shame that some equipment limits the listeners enjoyment. Seems like something's wrong there.

Oh wait.....a great song just came on.....I gotta go......

[studiotech]

The majority of my stuff sounds amazing too, but I wouldn't say 99% of it; more like 80%.

I either gotta find out what you guys are listening to or I'm awfully picky cause much of what I buy that was recorded in the last 15+ years sounds average to poor.  Not to change the topic too much, but it's kind of sad that technology has progressed SO much in that time to allow the POSSIBILITY of better recordings, but it has in fact also allowed producers/mixing engineers and mastering engineers to make things sound worse.  Add to that the fat that price of entry for recording equipment has reduced drastically and you get lots of musicians and weekend warrior types recording themselves in questionable environments and it is a recipe for bad sounding recordings.  Overcompression, overprocessed, poor gain staging, lack of fundamental recording techniques all add up to amateur level sound quality.

Add to that a whole generation of engineers who have ONLY gone to a school for it and then think that they know it all without realizing that the real way to learn good engineering techniques and habits is to mentor/intern under a seasoned pro.  Believe me, I used to teach these very kids.  I felt dirty after particularly poor students would move on to the next class.  If you've never heard excellence how can you judge?  When our new lead engineer started at the studio, he would do a mix and then ask my opinion.  I am always brutally honest.  After a few sessions, I invited him over to my place to have a listen.  I pulled out all of my best reference quality material and he was just amazed.  For hours he kept saying, "I never knew recorded sound could be that good."  He totally had his own expectations re-calibrated.  My system at the time was much more modest than what I run now.  I find this very common with younger engineers.  They have never been exposed to how good recorded sound CAN be, so they don't have a good measuring stick to judge their own results with.

A few months later we visited Bob Katz mastering studio.  This a killer listening environment.  Once again, all expectations were re-calibrated.  Poor guy was frustrated and depressed for about a year as he struggled to achieve what he now knew was possible. 

To come back somewhat to the topic at hand, what does all this mean for us as DIYers and serious listeners?  Well, try to listen to as many systems as possible.  Get your ears used to lots of different sounds.  Serious listening is a learned skill.  I may hear a slight change in compression or EQing that the more novice listener might not.  Don't just set your OB speakers in the room and think this is as good as it gets.  Always experiment with options for placement and room treatment.  Buy a really good set of headphones.  These are relatively cheap compared to good speakers and can be an excellent way to calibrate your ears AND system for correct tonality and detail retrieval. 

Now, as Bob said, I've got some good music calling my name...

Greg

[jimdgoulding]

My only concern is simply how does a recording sound in my room to my experienced ears.  I suppose I'm hopelessly subjective.  After reading all this, I don't think I would have it any other way.  The back wave of a dipole is redundent.  If this is pleasureable to the listener, way to go listener!  John mentioned that all speakers produce an omniwave, I hope my use of that word describes it but I think you know what is meant.  It is not the same, however, for foward radiators and dipoles.  As the frequency goes up with foward radiators, the wavelengths become shorter to the point of beaming.  With dipoles the whole shebang is reflected later in time.  I think I am happy with forward radiators and hearing the recording as it is.  I believe it is as is cause I am not having to contend with a second wave containing the same info in total as the first only later.  And the ambient space in the former is entirely notable (i.e. what the microphone or phones captured).  Yes, I do use discreet in room damping.  I think OB's would add an greater sense of space and grandeur properly placed that can be very becoming.  I owned electrostatic speakers at one time and if I recall right the atmosphere was warmer, also, possibly due to the doubling of the info.  They were pulled out from the back wall around 5'.  For orchestral music, they were the bomb.  For closely miked vocals, images were enlarged.  My forward firing speakers are more 3D, but to muddy the waters even futher, that could be in part cause the drivers are electronically time aligned.  I should point out that I have no experience with dynamic driver OB's.  I just talkin about planars.  Is that a whoops?

Truth be told, I'm a fan of both, that I've heard, but for different reasons .

ps- If all a person listens to is studio made popular music, they could probably care less about our obsessing anyway.  You know that Shelby Lynne tribute recording to Dusty Springfield?  Now THAT'S a fake presentation.

[werd]

I am not sure why dipoles are even brought into comparison? Dipoles are directional pointed speakers. OBs are directional but they behave completely different IMO. The speaker points forward with no baffled enclosre. I think dipoles only confuse the main perk open baffles offer. That being no mechanical compression from an enclosure other than the brace holding the speaker. You generally get no cross-over distortion and the entire frequency is free to act from a compressed typical speaker enclosure.

Two different presentations, a compressed driver designed to facilitate a frequency range or an OB that free of enclosure compression but less focus in their freq operating range.

Pick your poison, both are respectful if you can command their strengths with your system building.

[jimdgoulding]

Whoops.

[versus rider]

what is this dipole thing all about? surely it will introduce reflections as will rear facing drivers. open baffle in a nearfield listening position will virtually eliminate reflections and be more natural than a box speaker with its box issues. end of story.

[werd]

Whoops.

its friday nite what do you expect...

[JohnR]

I think I am happy with forward radiators and hearing the recording as it is.  I believe it is as is cause I am not having to contend with a second wave containing the same info in total as the first only later.

Well, you may prefer a different reflected spectrum to the original, but it's not accurate. I guess you could say, it's fake

I'd just like to try again to explain: it is not the purpose of a dipole speaker to generate a "second wave." It increases the direct-to-reverberant ratio by removing all the sound that is sprayed into the room (by speakers such as yours) to the sides. And what is sent to the rear should be diffused, and any reflecting surface sufficiently far away, so as to contribute to the reverberant field (which you want) and not to early reflections (which you don't).