Yes, much and many. It is paradigm, that a real center has higher intelligibility than a phantom one. All professional venues nowadays have real center loudspeakers. How you feed it is another question, I say feed it L+R.
I do not think, that the phantom still beats the real in the sweet spot, Jim. When evaluating it, one could listen to spoken sentences and try to get the meaning at first before trying to get the position. That way, one is stressed to tell the truth. You see, this is not a real discussion, we are all hiding behind computers.
So far all test have been done in that one room. I have another room (basement) I'll be moving them to, that is more reflective (concrete) that measures 12x7x2.5m to see what it sounds like.
Simple LR works and sounds good, as for the refinements.
A cost effective way is via some of the Surround Sound Amps. Many contain DSPs and are configurable in many of the ways Wesayso is doing. You need to check the manuals first to see what they can do. I have a Yamaha RXV659 and you can use a DSP preset or manually set the 11 parameters to describe the delays, reflections, reverb and other room parameters. Often older models (check first) can be purchased for modest amounts (<$150cdn).
Easy to compare. Many Surround sound amplifiers have settings to allow you to use multi speaker arrangements for playing back 2CH stereo. They synthetically create a center channel using L+R.
I have a couple of spare chip amps, how about I just use two small speakers one above the other in the centre?
When playing stereo over a real centre one needs to keep in mind the differences in perception between a real centre and a phantom centre.
If the material you play back is mixed on a system with a phantom centre you'd probably need to adjust it to get the tonal balance of the centre channel the same.
I know I have a different pre-set for playing multichannel material. There are differences between mixes made for multichannel and for regular stereo.
L+R alone isn't going to beat a phantom centre.
Many have tried up-mixing stereo to multichannel. Look at Linkwitz's site, he has done his share of experiments too. Surround stereo system
I've read a lot of material about up-mixing routines. One of them did rise above the others, Harmon's Logic 7. Based on general opinions, most preferred it compared to Dolby Pro Logic II. The papers from David Griesinger are highly recommended.(*)
I've read a lot of them with interest and pleasure, such as this one for starters: http://www.davidgriesinger.com/aes99.pdf
While it seems like an easy move, it really isn't. With my library stuck in the Stereo format I can't see myself moving towards a system with a physical centre channel, I couldn't even fit it into my room (the way I want to). As said, I don't feel the need to either.
I've ran a lot of tests on intelligibility and learned some things there that helped me a lot. You'd be surprised what Stereo can do.
I've also done my share of Ambiophonics tests with my previous speaker pair.
Do I see an advantage in using multichannel? Yes, if the material is mixed for that platform. As said, my library that I deem important is 'trapped' in Stereo. That was and will remain my primary target.
I guess It's all about priorities. What you want your system to do. I can't tell you guys what to choose, each of us must make their own choices.
(*)= I took a lot of queues from the work of Griesinger in my own processing chain. It's only fair to say his papers were a great inspiration.
My goals were a bit different than what he tries to accomplish, but his research is thorough and a highly recommended read.
If the material you play back is mixed on a system with a phantom centre you'd probably need to adjust it to get the tonal balance of the centre channel the same.
I know I have a different pre-set for playing multichannel material. There are differences between mixes made for multichannel and for regular stereo.
L+R alone isn't going to beat a phantom centre.
Many have tried up-mixing stereo to multichannel. Look at Linkwitz's site, he has done his share of experiments too. Surround stereo system
I've read a lot of material about up-mixing routines. One of them did rise above the others, Harmon's Logic 7. Based on general opinions, most preferred it compared to Dolby Pro Logic II. The papers from David Griesinger are highly recommended.(*)
I've read a lot of them with interest and pleasure, such as this one for starters: http://www.davidgriesinger.com/aes99.pdf
While it seems like an easy move, it really isn't. With my library stuck in the Stereo format I can't see myself moving towards a system with a physical centre channel, I couldn't even fit it into my room (the way I want to). As said, I don't feel the need to either.
I've ran a lot of tests on intelligibility and learned some things there that helped me a lot. You'd be surprised what Stereo can do.
I've also done my share of Ambiophonics tests with my previous speaker pair.
Do I see an advantage in using multichannel? Yes, if the material is mixed for that platform. As said, my library that I deem important is 'trapped' in Stereo. That was and will remain my primary target.
I guess It's all about priorities. What you want your system to do. I can't tell you guys what to choose, each of us must make their own choices.
(*)= I took a lot of queues from the work of Griesinger in my own processing chain. It's only fair to say his papers were a great inspiration.
My goals were a bit different than what he tries to accomplish, but his research is thorough and a highly recommended read.
Last edited:
I'd love to see an APL_TDA plot from your setup, as measured at the listening position. Not to "judge" anything, mind you. Just sheer interest in how that setup would look.
Before I ever got the idea to build my line arrays I've thought about Omni as an option. (among open baffle and horns and whatnot)
Ultimately I chose what I did because of the space I had available, the restrictions laid upon me by my significant other and the goals I had in mind.
I'd love to see what your Omni setup would look like out in the room (especially a room as big as yours) as plotted by APL_TDA. The Demo version could do this, just use a screen grab to be able to save a picture of it. Download here...
Hope you're willing to play
. Earlier I asked a member that has an excellent room (with a passive Haas kicker) to show his results. You can find it here. Painfully obvious his room is so much better behaved than mine . But that room does not resemble a living room anymore. Every bit of sound that hits the listening chair is carefully planned. His Haas kickers got help later on from speakers, much like I do. We've had a lot of fun discussions about it where Griesinger was often mentioned. His setup isn't using DSP, yet we still have a lot in common.Don't look at those graphs and expect to be close to it though. His setup probably exceeds most studio requirements.
In my opinion we can all learn together if we work together. And be open about what we do and why. At least that's why try to I write down the things I try, and even share what went wrong
.
Have you much experience with dipoles? I noticed I got a better central imagine when I went to dipole. Seems the reflection off the front wall about 4' away helped fill in the centre, more depth of image too, I don't feel I'm missing anything but of course I don't know for sure, yet anyway.....
Who, me? Not since I ran open baffle midranges long long ago. Without knowing at that time that's what they were called 
.
I didn't have the space available to choose that. I had restrictions of placement laid upon me that didn't allow speakers away from walls.
The most extreme open baffle setup I've followed out of interest must have been StigErik's setup.
A lot of the pictures are missing nowadays but it was an awesome read.
.I didn't have the space available to choose that. I had restrictions of placement laid upon me that didn't allow speakers away from walls.
The most extreme open baffle setup I've followed out of interest must have been StigErik's setup.
A lot of the pictures are missing nowadays but it was an awesome read
.
Last edited:
I do like comparing the objective measurements to how we subjectively perceive and enjoy music. The "ear" is a complex system. I certainly have posted many results in my thread on Omni but only for FR and directivity. I'll have a look at the link you provided to see if I can do it. I'm all for posting results (warts and all) it can only expand the body of knowledge.I'd love to see an APL_TDA plot from your setup, as measured at the listening position. Not to "judge" anything, mind you. Just sheer interest in how that setup would look.
Before I ever got the idea to build my line arrays I've thought about Omni as an option. (among open baffle and horns and whatnot)
Ultimately I chose what I did because of the space I had available, the restrictions laid upon me by my significant other and the goals I had in mind.
I'd love to see what your Omni setup would look like out in the room (especially a room as big as yours) as plotted by APL_TDA. The Demo version could do this, just use a screen grab to be able to save a picture of it. Download here...
Hope you're willing to play
Don't look at those graphs and expect to be close to it though. His setup probably exceeds most studio requirements.
In my opinion we can all learn together if we work together. And be open about what we do and why. At least that's why try to I write down the things I try, and even share what went wrong
My point with the Omni's is they are the polar opposite of controlling reflections. They literally spray the room, so if reflections are a problem, my sound should be seriously impaired but it is not (to my ear). I continue to get a stereo image.
From what i've read and heard on the subject i don't think it has to do with specific polar responses as much as just keeping the directivity controlled and gradually changing in a gradient fashion from omni to beaming without a mediocre crossover.
Run stereo pink noise into your system and use your ears. Move your head back and forth. If it makes weird spiking phase sounds then it needs to be fixed. If there is minimal weirdness then i think you are good.
Run stereo pink noise into your system and use your ears. Move your head back and forth. If it makes weird spiking phase sounds then it needs to be fixed. If there is minimal weirdness then i think you are good.
In my opinion and hunch on the subject is that late reflections matter very little in a room. The best you can do in terms of treating a room that you are not constructing from scratch is to deaden the room or liven the room and that is it. Early reflections in between the direct sound and you matter much more. Keeping your speakers a bit off of the wall helps a lot.
Linkwitz did an experiment a while back and maybe i can cut through his over wording on the topic for you. He spent his life trying to make a perfect dipolar speaker because he believe that dipolar response is what made Quad elctrostats sound so good. After he made his perfect speaker he then tried to construct what he considered the polar opposite of that speaker - an omni. Or as close to omnidirectional as he could make. One speaker is supposed to make the least amount of modes in a room and the omni is supposed to be a maximum mode generator. What he found is that if you swap between the two and let a few seconds pass your brain adjusts and then both speakers are almost identical.
Imo what you can take from this is that physics in the room may have very little to do with actual sound we hear. We take the physical events and process them with our brain and transduce these physical events into perception which is actually an illusion.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.