Lolo, I thought so too, but life has its surprises. The room I now have is not big enough to really do what I want, tho there is a little room to expand.Yet it's more room than I even thought I'd have and it pleases me. I've been working hard on the acoustics to try to make it sound bigger. Not an easy task.
Unless we are millionaires, or have some old barn to convert, few of us will have rooms like that. But we can still work toward the goal, at least knowing that it is possible. Big rooms are easier, for sure. But there is a lot we can do to the small ones to improve them.
Unless we are millionaires, or have some old barn to convert, few of us will have rooms like that. But we can still work toward the goal, at least knowing that it is possible. Big rooms are easier, for sure. But there is a lot we can do to the small ones to improve them.
Mass is one thing I have not explored to much simply because I use smaller drivers. But mass does become important when you start getting into larger drivers and higher SPL output. If the driver is located very low, spikes to add to the stability of the whole unit in addition to the decoupling it provides. Actually doing some calculation would be very interesting.
Markus, you still haven't told us if you listened to the files Pano posted couple of weeks ago. And you still haven't provided a link or results for the DR ratio test. And yet, you are back here, stirring up the discussion and asking questions that have already been answered.
We are not getting anywhere with this. There has been enough evidence provided here for those that want to investigate. I'd suggest shutting down this thread.
We are not getting anywhere with this. There has been enough evidence provided here for those that want to investigate. I'd suggest shutting down this thread.
I'm sorry. I have followed the thread very closely. When Dr. Geddes was claiming directivity below 700 Hz does not matter, you argued against him. When I argued it does matter, you argued against me. You are just looking to aggravate people, not learn anything.
And no, you have not provided your impressions of Pano's files or the DR test. Not in this thread and not in the other directivity thread. I don't want to argue with you anymore, because it is a waste of my time and others' time.
And no, you have not provided your impressions of Pano's files or the DR test. Not in this thread and not in the other directivity thread. I don't want to argue with you anymore, because it is a waste of my time and others' time.
I think the files that Pano posted were very inspiring. I wonder if it could be done so that the ITD and IID were shifted to produce the same image shift and see how much shift makes audible difference. What would be interesting is doing so in increments within a range of say 30deg, and see if we can get the angle sequence correct.
Then you simply didn't understand what I was saying. Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough.
Check posts #1570 and #1573 in the other thread. Who is the guy that posted? Yep, that was me. So who is wasting the time of whom?
I won't waste any more time finding the replies I gave to Pano's files. They are there.
If you didn't understand what was said then I expect you to ask questions. Instead you try to make me look like a liar. How does that make you look?
Last edited:
I sure hope you're willing to write it down anyway. I'm sure more than one reading this thread would be interested. It seems to me an effortless system is one of the keys?
Finally, some real data. Thanks! Pretty good, I would say. Clarity over diffusiveness. Some links to your thoughts on Pano's files would also be useful.
And no, you haven't made yourself very clear, at least to me. Why don't you tell us what you think about directivity below 700 Hz? Not important, important, not enough data to say for sure.
My main argument is that getting the direct sound to the listener and then delaying the reflected sound is key. This is why Tom's synergy horns are reported to image very well as well. Of course, the single driver thing helps. But the main advantage is that there are no early reflections and this gives the illusion a better chance of sustaining itself.
@Pano
@ Frank
I thank you for taking the time to answer in some detail. I see both of you experiencing the acoustic scene as completely detached from the loudspeakers up to "extreme" angles. While Frank's AS would basicly move with the listener, Pano's appears to stay in the middle. Mine would move contralateral to my own movement. I can see how different trading mechanisms are at work here.
Panos answer regarding the depth gives me the impression that depth appears sort of "layered" and might get compressed when moving far off axis.
I'm scratching my head about the (missing) answers concerning the details of the acoustic scene. It could be me who is too focussed on this - but I seldom get a clear answer when asking about the stability of phantoms placed between the center image and the speaker positions. When I remove crosstalk and as much reflections as possible from my listening experience, many recordings offer a very detailed AS. Are you really sure that you can transport this accuracy much away from the central listening position?
Rudolf
@ Frank
I thank you for taking the time to answer in some detail. I see both of you experiencing the acoustic scene as completely detached from the loudspeakers up to "extreme" angles. While Frank's AS would basicly move with the listener, Pano's appears to stay in the middle. Mine would move contralateral to my own movement. I can see how different trading mechanisms are at work here.
Panos answer regarding the depth gives me the impression that depth appears sort of "layered" and might get compressed when moving far off axis.
I'm scratching my head about the (missing) answers concerning the details of the acoustic scene. It could be me who is too focussed on this - but I seldom get a clear answer when asking about the stability of phantoms placed between the center image and the speaker positions. When I remove crosstalk and as much reflections as possible from my listening experience, many recordings offer a very detailed AS. Are you really sure that you can transport this accuracy much away from the central listening position?
Rudolf
Agree with Rudolf here. I'm not sure the AS can be as robust as in central spot. Maybe if your brain has learned something in the sweet spot that can then be transferred to other locations.
When I read this(with all respect), I see a person stuck in a box trying to squeeze water out of a rock. If your technique cannot be duplicated by everyone, it is not a technique at all - it is a fluke of audio reproduction where a certain set of circumstances come together in a single room. This is the way I look at the example Pano has presented us. Also, I don't want to be stuck fiddling around with my system for ever, I want to enjoy it at some point.
When you have heard a well designed multichannel system in a room with all of the right pieces in place, it is only then you realize that stereo has few benefits, and many drawbacks. The spatial distortion of stereo really bugs me because it is not even close to a real experience. As a sound mixer the amount of EQ you have to use to create that nice stable center image is far in excess of that in which a hard center channel is used. Less processing, less work, and less time is the end result of using a hard center. The sound of a live rooms true ambience can never be realize with the sound only coming from two sources. You absolutely need additional speakers on the sides AND on the rear walls of the listening room to recover true ambience in its proper spatial place. It also increases the clarity of the soundfield as I could put the performance strictly in the front three speakers, and seperate the ambience to the side and rear speakers.
Once again, these comments don't strengthen your arguement that Stereo is perfectly adequate for sound reproduction, or there is a way to get more out of stereo than we are already hearing. If your way is the way of getting to that goal, I don't want to have to go to your house to experience it. I want it in mine. If it cannot be done in mine or even 95% of the listening rooms because we lack that "magic" combination you speak about, then we are back to the argument that stereo is not sufficent enough for realistic spatial playback.
Way to much psycho babble going on at this point in this thread. What kind of nonsense is after the brain learns something it can then hear something in another location? I am going to stop watching this thread as it has come to a point where you are arguing about phantom images and whether you can make them move somewhere else by training your brain. Pure BS at this point. The reality for those trying to duplicate the illusion that one person, let us just say Pano for now, has created by trying to understand how he set up his speakers exactly is crazy. Unless you have the identical speakers with the identical polar response and frequency response in the identical room you can never get there from here. You are chasing illusions and conjecture of one persons description of sound and trying to create that while every aspect of the rest of the systems are different. This has become a complete cluster F..k at this point. Carry on as you will never come to a real conclusion with what is now being argued. Bye........
Because I was the one who made the point about learning the sound, I will respond to Kindhornman's comments. It is not BS at all. It is a well documented effect. I don't have references to give you right now, but they are somewhere on Linkwitz's site. There is also an old test where the sine signal starts at one speaker, which the brain localizes and is then swept to the other speaker, but the perception is that the sound still comes from the speaker which emitted the leading edge of the sine wave.
Though I agree this thread should be closed.
Though I agree this thread should be closed.
Agree with what you say, soundtrackmixer. But a multichannel system with a dedicated room is also far from the reality for most people. In the end, the truth is that without going to extremes and spending a lot of money, the illusion simply cannot be pulled off very well.
What is a lot of money? This is relative IMO.
A dedicated room could be nothing more than a converted bedroom you already have in your house. That was the case for me.
I paid $4700 for high quality 7.1 custom made minimonitors (They sound so similar to the Harbeth P3ESR it is scary). I paid $3500 for for a Arcam AVR600 receiver, and $1600 for a custom made high output low distortion 15" subwoofer, and $500 dollars for the source (A Oppo BDP-103). That is less than $10K for the sound system, and a hair over including the source. I spent maybe a $1000 dollars more on room treatments, and I did room analysis for free using my Sim3 room analyzing and correction system. This is less than a lot of audiophiles pay for their two channel system.
It's interesting how the thread has now developed ... clearly many people are very frustrated about hearing of the possibilities in SQ, and not being able to see a clear way forward to achieving that themselves. I apologise for adding to that sense of unease, but getting beyond the generally accepted standard in stereo reproduction is going to be a step by step process, and one of the key first steps is making people aware of the concept. Immediately turning that into a reality for everyone is not going to happen, so a bit of patience and forbearance, and ongoing interaction will be necessary if real forward movement is to take place