Hello Markus. I kind of follow your debate with graaf in various threads. I think you could easily try SLS alignment with your Nathans - just place them back to back in facing the side walls and maybe tilt them up a little. I'd be very interested in your opinion and hearing experience. I will make the same experiment when I come home on Friday (but with some ordinary bookshelf speakers). And maybe you may recommend me some "reference" track, which would prove or diapprove the points you or graaf made.
Actually, I think there is nothing really special about that - all I know is from the pictures, Sterolith website (full of marketing blah blah), a french review and this forum. On the SL website, they claim it can be placed anywhere in the room. I will maybe start from the walls moving later somehow into the middle. In my view, you should be able to hear the benefits (or disadvantages?) with this approximate back-to-back setup. I am curious about the results and I will share mine as soon as I have some.
Did a quick test with my speakers back to back. Of course everything now was highly colored due to the polar pattern of my speakers.
As expected there's an increase in spaciousness. Reverberation of a recording becomes more plausible, i.e. "real".
Localization is gone. There's only "left space" or "right space" and a lot of "around the center". The right side sounds like a plausible space whereas the left side isn't perceivable as a uniform space. This might be due to the pass-through to the kitchen and/or the recording. It looks like a symmetrical room setup is necessary.
What disturbed me most was that I couldn't see my screen anymore as there were two speakers standing in the middle of the room
Best, Markus
As expected there's an increase in spaciousness. Reverberation of a recording becomes more plausible, i.e. "real".
Localization is gone. There's only "left space" or "right space" and a lot of "around the center". The right side sounds like a plausible space whereas the left side isn't perceivable as a uniform space. This might be due to the pass-through to the kitchen and/or the recording. It looks like a symmetrical room setup is necessary.
What disturbed me most was that I couldn't see my screen anymore as there were two speakers standing in the middle of the room
Best, Markus
I think that there is a reason why classic stereo has survived and almost all else has failed (excluding the "possible" emergence of multi-channel which I'm not so certain will survive either). Two channel is practical to setup, yield a very reasonable compromise to the problems involved, is cost effective and oh yea, its readily availble! I think a derived center channel does make some sense as this, in my experince, adds to stereo in a practical way.
markus76 said:
What disturbed me most was that I couldn't see my screen anymore as there were two speakers standing in the middle of the room
Best, Markus
Yeah, that's always a p!sser.
That extreme configuration won't work well with your speakers.
Instead space them about 4-5 feet apart and "aim" them (relative to you) so that they are about 15 degrees off-axis from your listening position TO THE "OUTSIDE". In other words START with pretty much the opposite of what Earl generally *recommends (i.e. "toe-in"). From there continue to very gradually "rotate" them so that they become increasingly off-axis (and pointing away from you). Obviously at some point it starts sounding like a cr@ppy set of headphones - when you reached that far then start rotating them "inward" again toward you until you find something you like. (..of course this isn't to say that you will like it at all, rather it will give you a somewhat different perspective and hopefully one that isn't totally worthless.)
*Note that Earl's recommendation is overall the most accommodating to room placement and multi-listener. Its easily the best method I can think of for quality custom home theater listening (for several reasons). To the best of my knowledge it was first introduced/pioneered by Ted Jordan.
markus76 said:
Stereolith/SLS is NOT an omni set up, haven't You noticed?
markus76 said:
I expect only the same as Siegfried Linkwitz (and audio engineer, I understand that You don't know him):
yes, omni
surprise Yourself Markus!
markus76 said:
Markus, last time I'm repeating it
Stereolith is NOT an omni design and SLS is not an omni set up
markus76 said:
yes, talking from my own experience it is necessary for optimal results
"Localization is gone"?
there must be something wrong with Your specific set up or specific recording
"Localization is gone" is not my experience neither many other people who tried SLS
localization should be much better
obviously Your speakers and listening room are optimized for different set up
on the other to know this SLS well to be able to do justice to it much more is needed than "quick test" with one or two recordings
best regards!
graaf
graaf, no need to be ironic, sarcastic or just troll-ish. All your last comments have been like this. It's not pleasant or helpful for me to read your posts. I know better ways to waste my time. So I'll stop the discussion with you at this point until you find back to a more objective orientated conversation.
Best, Markus
Best, Markus
Graaf, if I may say so, I agree with Markus about your posts. I will seldom respond to them either because you just don't seem to have a cooperative attitude and only want to express your side not learn from others who may have more knowledge or experince. I have come to find Marcus quite reasonable and knowledgable and hope to meet him some day - you have not shown him (or me for that matter) much respect and I think that you should.
markus76 said:
gedlee said:
sorry Gentlemen but I won't respond to the above quoted argumenta ad hominem as I believe that such arguments do not belong to fair and honest discussion
whether I am disrespectful troll or not (anyone can judge for himself) has nothing to do with things discussed
regards!
graaf
gedlee said:
Dear Dr Geddes
have You really ever played around with Stereolith-like set up trying to optimize it?
or is my question disrespectful?
in such a case I apologize in advance!
best regards!
graaf
ps.
testimonials to the fact that Stereolith can be far superior to conventional stereo can also be read on the web
does it make a difference that they are not on Your website but just on the web?
No need to be sarcastic.
No I have not done a lot with stereolith-like setup, but the results that Markus got are exactly what I would expect. My speakers are not designed for this kind of setup, but fundamentaly I don;t see how good imaging could ever be achieved and imaging is crucial to my perception of audio.
No I have not done a lot with stereolith-like setup, but the results that Markus got are exactly what I would expect. My speakers are not designed for this kind of setup, but fundamentaly I don;t see how good imaging could ever be achieved and imaging is crucial to my perception of audio.
gedlee said:
That seams to be really a hard task. I think it isn’t possible by phantom source based procedures.
I am searching a way out since many years. Possibly a 3d solution for wave field synthesis based virtual sources become sometimes a possible solution. See that little animation how it would work:
http://www.syntheticwave.de/pictures/WFS_transformation_principle.swf
@Elias
Your posting #2 regarding the phantom source perception; welcome in the club.
H.
www.holophony.net
graaf said:... so perhaps You can just stop speculating about trade-off, about Stereolith and other things You don't know yet criticize...
...and just try it?
why not?
graaf
So I finally tried it myself. I put two small fullrange boxes along the wall - back to back and at ear height. Symmetry along that wall (and around the corners) is almost perfect. What did I hear:
A center "image" that for the most part compressed the central 45° of my normal listening "window" into a ~10° wide spot. Everything outside seemed stretched between the inner circle and the corners. Anything with very high frequency content would have a phantom image right in the corners.
While sounds emanating left from the middle still could be localized on the left side, precision of imaging was a far cry from what I am used to.
Remarkable were the spectral uniformity of the sound almost everywhere in the room and how the speakers generated a "wall of sound" with every music that was more than one voice or instrument wide. I can see applications of this principle in situations, where you want music distributed evenly and undisturbingly over the whole place.
But in the end I would prefer omnis for that kind of experience. At least they improved in imaging when I moved near to their baseline. Sitting just in front of my "SLS" setup didn´t work at all.
Markus comment <<Localization is gone. There's only "left space" or "right space" and a lot of "around the center">> sums it up pretty well IMHO.
Just my individual impressions with an admittedly frugal setup.
Rudolf
In my experience, one box stereo systems can be marvelous, but are limited to listening somewhere down the central axis only. For me this is an unacceptable compromise.
Well set up conventional two-speaker systems with controlled directivity can provide a reasonable stereo effect over about 15º left and right of center, but this does depend on the speaker axes crossing in front of the central listener so that if the listener moves left he moves closer to the axis of the far speaker and further off the axis of the nearer speaker, compensating roughly for the precedence effect.
Well set up conventional two-speaker systems with controlled directivity can provide a reasonable stereo effect over about 15º left and right of center, but this does depend on the speaker axes crossing in front of the central listener so that if the listener moves left he moves closer to the axis of the far speaker and further off the axis of the nearer speaker, compensating roughly for the precedence effect.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.