|
Post by Hexspa on Dec 5, 2016 16:41:30 GMT
Maybe but is it even disprovable? Maybe in an anechoic chamber there's no difference. LOL, yes, it's disprovable. Speakers do not need distance to "bloom," nor do low frequency waves need space to "develop" which is another myth I see repeated. If either of those were true, headphones wouldn't work. The only thing that might "bloom" with distance is room tone. Re: room tone. Meaning, reflections. Meaning original signal arriving later, though perhaps filtered. Meaning more low-level information available at the LP. Meaning a fundamentally different listening experience than speakers being very near your ears. So while it's not "bloom" there's a different thing going on when you move your speakers away - and not just imaging. So long as you're getting a good response and decay, then it should be up to the listener which he prefers. It's not different from people preferring a room that is not "dead". Room tone feels pejorative. If we've treated early reflections and have minimized flutter echo, this "room tone" isn't necessarily bad. Indeed, some people put "ambience" into their listening experience digitally or even during mastering. A crappy reverb/reflections algorithm is a crappy algorithm. However, a nice ambience tends to be desired. Therefore, if we have a good room, some ambience can be desireable and this is accomplished, in part, by increasing speaker distance. In other words, sound might not "bloom" or "develop" but yet it does. -m
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Dec 5, 2016 17:19:59 GMT
Another thing to consider is dispersion.
The sound coming from a loudspeaker will not be the same along any axis from box to ear.
In the case of a tweeter, there needs to be distance for the sound to blend with the woofer
and it will do so in different amounts along the continuum.
There is also absorption - how much of which frequencies are you getting far away as opposed to up close?
The sound spreads out and at differing rates dependent on frequency.
Some of that energy is absorbed, never to audibly return.
So even in a theoretically flat space with no reflections, and even with a one-driver system, the speaker will sound different further away than up close.
There are many variables which are independent of reflections, and hence modes, to consider to believe that speaker distance is irrelevant.
Maybe sound doesn't bloom but it does change over distance.
I won't say the b word or the f word but I will say you have to balance modal response as well as ambience to determine your ideal speaker position.
As a side note, this got me thinking about how the recordings you make are inverse to what others hear - if you have a peak at 100Hz, you might notch it out of your recording.
Similarly, if you have a very dead room, you might end up adding more ambience than someone with your opposite scenario.
-m
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Winer on Dec 7, 2016 16:37:24 GMT
I found this in the Grammys' Recommendations For Surround Sound Production PDF file:
"The optimum distance from the mix position is between 6.5 and 7.5 feet, depending upon the particular monitors being used and the size of the room."
That's it, no further explanation. I imagine it has more to do with staying on-axis with small movements than anything else. If you're very close to a speaker, moving your head even an inch or two changes the angle more than when you're 5-6 feet away. But I can't say for sure what they had in mind.
Edit, I missed that there were two more posts. So Yes to your axis comment. Not sure about needing distance for the tweeter to "blend" with the woofer. Sound can blend at any distance.
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Dec 8, 2016 15:37:23 GMT
I think the biggest contributing factor is probably room ambience like you mentioned.
But, similarly to axis response, having speakers very close seems like it would affect how much direct signal you'll get from the tweeter as opposed to having the speaker further where the sound can blend more.
At minimum, having the larger sound stage is nice.
-m
|
|