and how the stuff sounds on Stereolith, this and the one linked earlier, from Schoeps?
also - how does the original Stereolith sound - as far as spatial presentation is concerned - in comparison to Stereosphere™ or the TIE fighter?
Last edited:
and I would like to hear Your unbiased opinion first
I understand that, I ask exactly how this prototype's* spatial presentation of sound compares to the one of the original Stereolith?
*in the form You have presented it in this thread as up and running or in any other current form - TIE fighter or anything else You actually have up and running
Here're the results with CD speakers:
2A, speaker is somewhere between left and center but the location is a little diffuse with an added sense of space.
2B, typical stereophonic pin-point localization with the speaker a little bit closer to the center. Minimal sense of space.
2C, good localization with an added sense of space. Closer to the left speaker.
3A, very sharp localization as the speaker moves from the left to the right.
3B, no sharp localization. At first it's like two sound from the left and the right, then the speaker seems to move from the right to the left. The more I listen to this sample the more distinct the right-left movement gets.
we all know that CD speakers are good when properly set up in a stereo triangle, results quite as expected
can You post similar comparisons between Stereolith and CD speakers but with the use of Schoeps' test samples?
and what about up and running Stereosphere™ prototype?
Stereolith nearfield measurements of reflex port, mid woofer and tweeter:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
interesting! thank You!
looks like the midbasses are not filtered at all
are they working in one volume or is there any kind of partition inside? Can You inspect this
through the reflex port?
I listened AB and MS piano samples with my cardboard stereolith. This is my report. And I'm not biased lol
AB is more wide. MS is narrow, more center.
AB is more everywhere in frontal hemisphere like notes are flying in the air. It has a certain appeal to me. MS does not move, like not much imaging (well looking at the pic they placed the MS mic inside the piano! Who will listen piano with head inside??)
There is small tonal balance difference between AB and MS, maybe freq response issue who knows..
I like the open sound of AB, it is more around me, envelopes. MS is boring.
- Elias
AB is more wide. MS is narrow, more center.
AB is more everywhere in frontal hemisphere like notes are flying in the air. It has a certain appeal to me. MS does not move, like not much imaging (well looking at the pic they placed the MS mic inside the piano! Who will listen piano with head inside??
)There is small tonal balance difference between AB and MS, maybe freq response issue who knows..
I like the open sound of AB, it is more around me, envelopes. MS is boring.
- Elias
I listened AB and MS piano samples with my cardboard stereolith. This is my report. And I'm not biased lol
AB is more wide. MS is narrow, more center.
AB is more everywhere in frontal hemisphere like notes are flying in the air. It has a certain appeal to me. MS does not move, like not much imaging (well looking at the pic they placed the MS mic inside the piano! Who will listen piano with head inside??
yes indeed, please...
...
also check the ensemble sample, in case of piano samples the mikes are practically stuck into the f$%&ing piano - how can anyone expect any sense of space from such configuration? stick Your head into the piano, there is not much space in there
such closely miked recordings are pure audiophile stereo aberrations - this is not what the pianist hears, neither it is anything what anybody on the hypothetical audience hears, this is just what an audiophile wants - to stick his ugly head right into the instrument, how can it be realistic? it is pure fiction
please Elias - check the ensemble samples and post Your observations
best regards,
graaf
Last edited:
Yes of course!
The ensemble samples with cardboard stereolith follows the same general trend like the piano samples.
It's interesting that when the mic spacing goes smaller from AB to XY the envelopment also diminishes!
There is only small but clearly audible difference between the AB -> 2*MK21, 2*MK21 -> ORTF and ORTF -> XY. The difference is biggest between AB and XY.
Again AB makes the music to fly in the air, very nice, but maybe too much?
The 2*MK21 is also very nice, slighly more down to earth than AB, I could hear this in a concert maybe.
ORTF is getting too narrow, imaging is stingy, envelopment almost gone.
XY is terrible! I wish not to listen to this.
- Elias
The ensemble samples with cardboard stereolith follows the same general trend like the piano samples.
It's interesting that when the mic spacing goes smaller from AB to XY the envelopment also diminishes!
There is only small but clearly audible difference between the AB -> 2*MK21, 2*MK21 -> ORTF and ORTF -> XY. The difference is biggest between AB and XY.
Again AB makes the music to fly in the air, very nice, but maybe too much?
The 2*MK21 is also very nice, slighly more down to earth than AB, I could hear this in a concert maybe.
ORTF is getting too narrow, imaging is stingy, envelopment almost gone.
XY is terrible! I wish not to listen to this.
- Elias
Hi Tubamark,
To clarification I have to say that your assumptions (experience?) do not follow for what I have just encountered with cardboard stereolith. With phantom I mean a location where no physical speaker exist. This is totally different than stereo triangle! As I indicate, phantom image (in case of stereolith the image on the side) does not move nor jump to the speaker when turning my head. Turning of the head is very powerfull localisation cue because is changes all the cues (ITD, ILD, pinna) and brain can easily track the difference. If system passes this ultimate test it must be a good system?
- Elias
To clarification I have to say that your assumptions (experience?) do not follow for what I have just encountered with cardboard stereolith. With phantom I mean a location where no physical speaker exist. This is totally different than stereo triangle! As I indicate, phantom image (in case of stereolith the image on the side) does not move nor jump to the speaker when turning my head. Turning of the head is very powerfull localisation cue because is changes all the cues (ITD, ILD, pinna) and brain can easily track the difference. If system passes this ultimate test it must be a good system?
- Elias
If by 'phantom' image you mean the phantom center:
When presented with a centered signal (monoaural info within the signal), the stereolith IS a center channel
To the extent that any signal present is uncorellated (L-R different in amplitude and especially in phase) is the extent to which the tweeter is cut-out and the highs are heard mostly (due to cone directivity) from the sidewalls, the center disappears, creating a great deal of envelopment and spaciousness.
There are always tradeoffs: The burden for creating believable phantom images (not to be confused with spaciousness) is now switched to the sides
It's a perfectly acceptable (even preferred) compromise for the right listener with the right recordings in the right room. The fussiness of phantom center images always bugs me, so it's worth pursuing. I can't believe WS doesn't offer a subwoofer pedestal to use for a stand, or an all-in-one tower speaker!
-- Mark
One extra remerkable feature of this concept:
When there is a phantom image, and I turn my head to face the perceived phantom the image is even more convincing and realistic. I've been turning my head everywhere for three days now looking at the empty air and the sound is coming from there! What can I say
- Elias
When there is a phantom image, and I turn my head to face the perceived phantom the image is even more convincing and realistic. I've been turning my head everywhere for three days now looking at the empty air and the sound is coming from there! What can I say
- Elias
Markus,
Now that you have a change, can you measure horisontal polars (true 360 deg since it is unsymmetrical):
* one channel on, other channel mute
* both channels on, same polarity
* both channels on, opposite polarity
I know it's a lot to measure, but you're from Germany and they like to measure everything in great detail
- Elias
Now that you have a change, can you measure horisontal polars (true 360 deg since it is unsymmetrical):
* one channel on, other channel mute
* both channels on, same polarity
* both channels on, opposite polarity
I know it's a lot to measure, but you're from Germany and they like to measure everything in great detail
- Elias
One extra remerkable feature of this concept:
When there is a phantom image, and I turn my head to face the perceived phantom the image is even more convincing and realistic. I've been turning my head everywhere for three days now looking at the empty air and the sound is coming from there! What can I say
- Elias
yes, it's pretty crazy, it is as if completely different space - real not faked - opened before us, indeed word holography comes to mind
of course a flooder does more or less* the same and is compatible with all kinds of recordings
*I can't tell now is it slightly better or slightly worse than back-to-back with suitable recordings - I made my comparisons years ago
Last edited:
so the original is just piece of junk, pity, bad for them, no wonder they never managed to succeed
nevertheless it remains great inspiration
Markus,
Now that you have a change, can you measure horisontal polars (true 360 deg since it is unsymmetrical):
* one channel on, other channel mute
* both channels on, same polarity
* both channels on, opposite polarity
I know it's a lot to measure, but you're from Germany and they like to measure everything in great detail
- Elias
No problem to do polars but I'm not sure why you would like to see polarity reversed?
Max. reflection free time I can get is 1.3m, i.e. resolution will be around 200Hz.
Ok, I see. I've no doubt that you experienced the phantom. However I suspect that it's apparent location is different than where it would be experienced with a stereo pair. Please try and let us know.
The phantom you experienced was (I'm guessing here) likely a sound with a wide spectrum and lots of phase info for the image, and the phantom stability could then be the result of a large area of sidewall being "illuminated". Since the sidewall is large and more distant from listener than any speaker would be, sounds coming from there will be more stable. The sidewall as a sound source is also less prone to the phantom-killing comb-filter and timing cues many experience (from regular 2 ch stereo) when moving around.
As has been reported, some tests that produce convincing phantom images on a traditional stereo pair stay near center for the Stereolith, so I would be surprised if you can consistently experience accurate imaging on numerous recordings.
While the stereolith approach can yield remarkable spaciousness, imaging (phantoms) will always be very vulnerable to both recording type and room acoustics, and it will not be able to provide accurate placement of images as reliably as a (well-setup) stereo pair can. Low midrange and bass information in particular will not be able to leave center.
Please try the sounds here: Accurate Stereo Performance. Scroll down to Pink Noise --> pink-alternating3.wav. The stereo signals will be huge, the mono will be accurate, and the off-center ones will be downright dissapointing. Granted, it's not music . . . but it will always speak the truth.
With a 2-channel signal, we'll always have to give up something.
-- Mark
It's not only different but localization as intended by the recording/mixing engineer is gone. The information is completely lost. There's just a central sound source but with the right recordings the spatial perception can be very natural although localization is ambiguous. I suppose correct pinna localization cues are a major contributor.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.