Strmbrg skrev:I en annan tråd dök det upp en kommentar om att dipoler låter diffust. Jag tror att det var ljudbilden snarare än klangen som avsågs.
Jag tycker att kommentaren är såpass intressant att det kan bli en egen tråd av det.
Det intressanta som jag ser det är att min egen erfarenhet är väsensskild från detta. Det handlar alltså INTE om någon känsla av att ha blivit ”nedslagen” av en kommentar och en vilja till ”upprättelse” eller liknande.
Det som intresserar mig är helt och hållet att det kan finnas så skilda uppfattningar om ljud.
Kan inte helt släppa tanken på att några kanske bildar sig ett lyssningsintryck styrt av hur man menar att det BORDE bli med dipoler. Det borde (ju såklart) bli diffust med den typen av spridning kanske man tycker. Eller är helt säker på. Och så tycker man att det låter just så som det (ju såklart) borde också...
Som sagt väldigt intressant!
Denna tråd där de jämför Genelec 8361,8351 med olika Magnepan och diskuterar ljudbild mm kan kanske vara intressant ?
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/foru ... pan.19631/” So what are the upsides of Magnepans? Well, the vertical dispersion is extremely narrow. You can see how narrow in the LRS review. The extremely low level floor and ceiling bounce may be what contributes to the way they make music "sound tall". They sound sort of like they're in a room with a much higher ceiling or something like that. This effect can be nice on orchestral and acoustic music, but you can't turn it off, and it's really not appropriate for all genres IMO.
For some people, this effect is worth all the downsides. For me, while it was fun to own them for a few years, now that I've discovered multi-channel upmixing, personally I think it's better in every way, it's configurable, can be turned off when not desired, and produces a better effect in most cases.”
Och …
” Even if Magnepans had a perfectly flat response(and to be clear, we don't really know how the larger ones perform, and the interpretation of anechoic measurements for dipoles is not 100% clear), they'd still sound pretty different than the studio monitors that are typically used for mixing music.
But then, so do the wide dispersion Revel floorstanders. It is pretty clear in the research that people prefer things that aren't necessarily used in the mixing process. For example, (tonally accurate) early reflections, which are present to much lesser degree in a typical studio, are preferred.
Unless you are treating your listening room as if it were a studio and using main monitors that have narrow-ish dispersion you're probably not hearing the same thing that was heard during the mixing/mastering process. And I mean, there are some people out there who do try to achieve that.
But the research indicates it's not the general preference and that pretty much everyone is seeking some kind of euphonic effect that increases the spaciousness of a typical stereo recording. Really all this shows you is that stereo is an inherently busted format that needs to be "fixed" at the user's end because there just isn't enough spatial information in it to be satisfying. I think upmixing is a much better way of fixing it than fiddling around with speaker types that cannot be easily changed, but it's just an alternate solution to the same problem.
Magnepans are one way of adding some spatial effect, the smaller ones at least I don't think are a good way because they have so many issues like their problematic back wave that causes comb filtering and a major lack of SPL capability in the mid/upper bass region. But I don't see how you can characterize the overall goal as fundamentally different from a wide-dispersion floorstander. It's the same type of thing just a different flavor.”
).