The answer to that is short. I do not alter the direct wave at all, so the double IR peaks are not altered (only by head shading).
The early wave front provides us with imaging queues, however our perception of tonal balance is based on a longer listening window. The diffused signal coming from the back is filling in some of the dips, without being identified as a new or separate signal. They reach our ears within the Haas limit.
The cross talk cancelation I spoke of before did try to alter the double peak, by lowering the second peak. Acting as a digital barrier. While is wasn't completely unsuccessful the version I came up with was causing listening fatigue in the longer run. I never got the desired results I was after. I guess it would only work effectively in the exact sweet spot. I did try some other software cross talk plugins too. Found on Ambiophonics.org.
The phase shuffler deals with it differently, I never experienced strain with that. That's all documented in this thread though. Lots of it remained pretty theoretical, I did not measure the resulting effect at the ear position.
It gave me another slight problem (based on extensive listening) in uneven staging. I could relate that back to theory. I might use this phase trick with 5.1 material for movies though. It does work!
I've spend quite some time on all 3 solutions. I'm happiest with my current solution for 2 channel stereo. It's natural sounding, not locked solely to the sweet spot position and user adjustable. I never accept just anything based on a few listening sessions. I've got to be able to live with it for longer periods and still be happy. This solution does that for me. I'm still making progress as there's so much adjustability in it, I haven't tried half of it yet.
Edit: I tried a 4th trick, just use EQ only (on the dip pattern) to see what that does. That too works better than it ought to do, but only in the exact sweet spot.
Last edited:
I think.
1. The analysis of Blumlein (and "shuffling" circuits) is meaningless with multi-mic'ed pan'ed-around "stereo" recording sources.
2. Interference (called by some "comb filtering") is everywhere in real-world rooms and so has no consequences for music listening.
B.
Of course adding effects like this will be audible and even impressive to some, maybe even many - not my cup of tea however, because that's not the way the artist heard it.
I don't reallly know how wesayso's cross talk canellation is programmed, but I guess it adds several flipped phased delay of the oppsit side of the signal, and several non fllipped delay of the same side sgnal to cancel out the flipped delay signal. It should theoritically work very well if the listner is at perfect sweet spot. I mean The comb filter effect will be minimal in ideal condition, but it didn't work for wesayso because he was not at the perfect sweet spot.
Which approach do you prefer, Hidley or Massenburg? I personaly think active diffusion is an interesting idea, although I have never experienced it.
I don't reallly know how wesayso's cross talk canellation is programmed, but I guess it adds several flipped phased delay of the oppsit side of the signal, and several non fllipped delay of the same side sgnal to cancel out the flipped delay signal. It should theoritically work very well if the listner is at perfect sweet spot. I mean The comb filter effect will be minimal in ideal condition, but it didn't work for wesayso because he was not at the perfect sweet spot.
I have tried some simple cross feed circuit which does flip phase a very long time ago, the amount of cross feed was adjustable. The impression one user gave me was "the bass was more firm". Besides my own system, I made two for friends.
But I was wondering whether it made sense to use a third or forth speaker to cancel the effects. If I cancel from the sides, then the backside ear gets effected less. Lots of things to do this year. Ambiophonics is getting to sound more reasonable.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Fair enough. That's a clear goal.
Since I'll never know how the artists heard it, or whether or not they even liked it, I won't lose sleep over it. All I can do is try for a neutral, realistic sounding system. The mismatched mid to side tonal balance bothered me as not neutral, so I wondered if there was a fix.
Is the cure worse than the illness? TBD.
Well, if we agree that there is indeed a flaw in the stereo system, maybe this corrected it to some degree and the result is actually closer to what the artist heard.
//
A headset device that has 2 tiny sperkers both side 5 to 10cm away from the head playing flipped and properly delayed signal also may work. Slightly less crazy look than the barrier.
A headset device that has 2 tiny sperkers both side 5 to 10cm away from the head playing flipped and properly delayed signal also may work. Slightly less crazy look than the barrier.
I realised that this only works if the main speaker has the same fullrange like phase response as the tiny speakers...
What's the difference with a LEDE concept room? The live end return will also colour the sound (as would Toole's diffusors). I get to choose content and timing, and can turn it off with one button.
This setup gives me a clean 20 ms window into the direct sound (with absorption panels). I'm not mixing and mastering, I'm just enjoying music on my end. Even though I can turn it off with one switch, I rarely do.
I do not.
Is not, if I got the impression rite, that the Blumlein circuit is meant to improve headphones playback of intensity stereophonics recordings. The latter are comparable to multi-mic'ed pan'ed-around "stereo" recordings; no run-time stereophonics. Intensity stereophonics sounds lame on headphones, hence electrical improvements have been sought and found.
Is everywhere, good point, but does have consequences. Just because bears **** in the woods, does not mean, that you should **** on my salads.
Ben, I think the comb filter wobble you see at your listening position is room reflection, not the speakers themselves unless they are horribly phase aligned. It is not a bad result at all, and my other room's measurement is much worse than that, but to clarify this phantom center symptom, probably a bit too much. I believe minimizing comb filter symptom is very rewarding job anyone can do rather easily and cheaply, so I wish you would try it.
How did you set your IR window? The result I posted was measured with 50ms, and guessing yours is much longer than that.
How did you set your IR window? The result I posted was measured with 50ms, and guessing yours is much longer than that.