The Room or the Recording?
Why is audio so complicated? What's all this nearfield business?
It does make sense that if you want to hear the speaker primarily then you can either sit close up or if possible take it to a quiet place outdoors and do your listening there.
On the other hand if you want to hear the effect of the room then you should sit as far away from the speaker itself as possible.
Then there are good rooms which can add via reflection to the direct/ original sound. Since no one listens in an anechoic chamber some room effect must be taken into consideration by the designer - eg dispersion patterns, placement etc.
Perhaps audiokinesis has developed some form of refined DSP (unlike those crude ones found on many surround sound systems) which can subtly change the sound of your room. Perhaps it is possible to increase 'sympathetic' room reflections which could give a sense of increased realism. Sounds phenomenally difficult but it's certainly interesting.
As if all this wasn't complicated enough then there's the issue of the Fletcher-Munson/ Equal Loudness curves which prove that ours ears cannot hear frequency (bass to treble) in a linear fashion.
The following article suggests that as the actual loudness/volume changes, the perceived loudness of the bass and treble frequencies that our brains hear changes. The actual frequencies don't, it's just that we hear them differently. Nature gives more importance to the midrange frequencies.
https://ehomerecordingstudio.com/fletcher-munson-curve/
Anyway, until audiokinesis can demonstrate otherwise, and it will be fantastic if he can, then we still rely primarily upon the speaker cone for our perception of recorded sound.
I'm guessing, and it's only a guess, that DSP will be the future of all reproduced sound once all the software algorithms, processors, and hardware have advanced sufficiently.
Why is audio so complicated? What's all this nearfield business?
It does make sense that if you want to hear the speaker primarily then you can either sit close up or if possible take it to a quiet place outdoors and do your listening there.
On the other hand if you want to hear the effect of the room then you should sit as far away from the speaker itself as possible.
Then there are good rooms which can add via reflection to the direct/ original sound. Since no one listens in an anechoic chamber some room effect must be taken into consideration by the designer - eg dispersion patterns, placement etc.
Perhaps audiokinesis has developed some form of refined DSP (unlike those crude ones found on many surround sound systems) which can subtly change the sound of your room. Perhaps it is possible to increase 'sympathetic' room reflections which could give a sense of increased realism. Sounds phenomenally difficult but it's certainly interesting.
As if all this wasn't complicated enough then there's the issue of the Fletcher-Munson/ Equal Loudness curves which prove that ours ears cannot hear frequency (bass to treble) in a linear fashion.
The following article suggests that as the actual loudness/volume changes, the perceived loudness of the bass and treble frequencies that our brains hear changes. The actual frequencies don't, it's just that we hear them differently. Nature gives more importance to the midrange frequencies.
https://ehomerecordingstudio.com/fletcher-munson-curve/
- At low listening volumes – mid range frequencies sound more prominent, while the low and high frequency ranges seem to fall into the background.
- At high listening volumes – the lows and highs sound more prominent, while the mid range seems comparatively softer.
Anyway, until audiokinesis can demonstrate otherwise, and it will be fantastic if he can, then we still rely primarily upon the speaker cone for our perception of recorded sound.
I'm guessing, and it's only a guess, that DSP will be the future of all reproduced sound once all the software algorithms, processors, and hardware have advanced sufficiently.