It was already obtained in the 50's
Two speakers in a stereo triangle alone cannot do it, but a clever speaker and the room can approach it.Attachments
We all know it's not safe to rely on opinions. But Pano's system really does change beliefs. It really can be done, and as he describes, it doesn't matter that you are not enveloped. The illusion is still really good. You do feel like you are there.
If you ask me, it is a combination of directivity from 200 Hz up, no early reflections, wide dispersion, well-integrated drivers, high output capability, channel matching, dedicated room and careful placement.
If you ask me, it is a combination of directivity from 200 Hz up, no early reflections, wide dispersion, well-integrated drivers, high output capability, channel matching, dedicated room and careful placement.
Wow - something worked for Markus! His brain must have taken a lapse for the worse! Hope he is all right.
See what happens when you had too much beer the night before. Nice side-effect, your Polar_map app is working again.
I have heard this comment before, but there is something confusing me. It seems that the techniques used to achieve wide dispersion and no early reflections are at odds with each other. In fact, if you did eliminate early reflections, how would you "know" is it had wide dispersion.
Think of the case where is a listener is using speakers outdoors and listening on axis (no walls or ceiling, so very few early reflections). If the dispersion is wide or narrow how would the listener distinguish the two cases?
Haha! I am actually laughing out loud...so, LOL!
This made my day
It is a subjective experience though.
It was already obtained in the 50's
Approach is not the same as there. Almost there cannot be compared with an actual perception of "there". Two channels can only put the performer in the room, it cannot put you in the location. Not enough spatial cues to "convince" the ear/brain mechanism that you are actually in the concert hall. That is a fact. Since speakers lack "intelligence", I am not so sure they can be clever.
See it was all in your head. Hangovers do have a way of clearly out the "stuff" that gets in the way.
No, that's wrong. It can be done, I've heard it done several times and in the presence of witnesses
Not saying that adding some surround channels wouldn't make it ever more wonderful, but it's not something you think about when hear stereo done right.
In the more mundane world of the livingroom stereo system, I agree that multi-channel can go a great way toward creating a "You Are There" effect. It's basically forcing the illusion because the system (including the room) is not up to the task of doing stereo right. It's a compromise that works OK and is affordable. It's the reasonable economic trade-off.
Just because most people have never heard it, does NOT make it impossible. Stereo, done right, can create an amazing sense of real space.
I was thinking similarly, but at least to the respondent I think it's "falling on deaf ears".
BTW, Pano - have you ever heard your system with good multi-channel surround (music, not film) and compared that to a system with a "they are hear" presentation under the same conditions?
If so, do you hear the overall "contraction" of the frontal-stage as well with the "they are hear" + surrounds, when compared to your "you are there" + surrounds?
You can have wide dispersion with no early reflections. Early reflections give away the source. Think of a SEOS-12 waveguide in free space. Wide dispersion and no early reflections. You simply point the waveguide to a foot or two in front of you. Late arriving reflections add spaciousness, which is preferred.
I haven't listened outdoors, but I would imagine that if there are no reflections at all, the image would form in your brain. Toole says as much in his book.
There is something strange about the claims as they see at odds with themselves.
"Directivity from 200 Hz up" - all speakers have directivity at all frequencies. Some are wide and some are narrow, but I would like to see some data that shows anything but a wide directivity at 200 Hz. Just saying it does not make it so. I've seen data from the Altec systems and at 200 Hz they are not directional.
My brain desparately wants to attach a cause to the experience
That is such an important statement. In many books that I have been reading lately the need for people to have a plausible explanation for experiences is a major driver in their making bad decisions. It turns out that once we arrive at a plausible cause we stop questioning and this becomes the answer, which, as anyone who stops to think about it knows, the plausible answer is not necessarily the right one. Everyone does this and we all do it all the time. Its just the way our brains work.
Then we have plausible deny-ability, denying the real underlying reason something works as it is just to complex or outside the given norm to be accepted by most. All the talk about bass horn directivity in a home environment and then the extended bass response that is often sighted just doesn't follow with the experience I have had nor the measurement I have taken and seen on this subject. Surround sound speakers are going to have the same polar response anomalies that any other speaker would have so now unless we have truly discrete channels with no cross talk between recorded channels we still have the same interactions involved. Just more of them. And someone earlier mentioned the old Dolby digital surround sound system and that is far from a true discrete multichannel sound source. Synthetic mono steered rear channels with limited bandwidth would never create the you are there sound field.
I think there is a bit of a misnomer here with "no early reflections".
1. it's in reference to reflections from reproduced sound.
2. it's referencing actual reflections vs. that of reflective conditions.
3. it's not really "no early reflections", rather the objective is moving as many of those reflections later in time than the listener is to direct sound. Though not *to* late, but the small-room condition will take care of that in most cases.
As far as knowing a loudspeaker has wide-dispersion - you hear that dispersion. From a horizontal perspective we are most sensitive to +/- 30 degrees forward and "rearward". In the context of increased "you are there" however - it's more about +/- 90 degrees where we are least sensitive.
You can get a more convincing audio scene with two speakers if they were set up using ambiophonics. If you want surround, a panambio set up will be much better than multichannel. The problem is, if audiophiles discriminate against multichannel....they certainly won't give ambiophonics a try
Have you ever tested panambio versus 5.1 or 7.1 so you could accurately say panambio is better? Secondly(and you can correct me if I am wrong), the equidistant seating arraignment for the optimum effect is really anti-movie, and anti multichannel music in its goals. A 5.1 system can provide great imaging for three people at least, and depending on the size of the screen, as many as five in a single row(this is for HT). This technology is really great for one person, and that is it. Once that person moves off axis, the effect falls apart. For this reason, I am sure that HT and multichannel music folks will reject this, as the survey we have done on HT viewing habits show that most HT owners view films with their whole families, or at least their spouse.
Audiophiles do not believe in having ANY processing in their audio chain PERIOD. They won't even include advance room correction which many of us who have used it knows it dramatically improves the sound when used with other acoustical tools. For this reason alone, I cannot see them having even the faintest interest in this product.
Ambiophonics, ambisonics, and binaural are all single listeners formats. Matrix has to be encoded and decoded, or the effect will be unstable. 5 or 7 DISCRETE channels is much better IMO because it is not as listener restrictive in terms of seating, and most of the time(with movies) there is no common information in all channels at the same time and at the same volume(or it will image over the head).
My question to you is if you have four surrounds instead of two, would those same polar response problems be actually audible? Movie sound is truly discrete as there is no relationship between channels until it comes out of the speakers and enters the room(the film score is the exception). Dialog is mono, and in most cases is never heard from any other speaker but the center(animation is the exception on that). Sound effects can be stereo(with movement), but is largely hundreds of individual mono sources sewn together to create an effect.
And someone earlier mentioned the old Dolby digital surround sound system and that is far from a true discrete multichannel sound source. Synthetic mono steered rear channels with limited bandwidth would never create the you are there sound field.[/QUOTE]
Dolby Digital is a full bandwidth totally discrete system. Dolby Stereo is what you are referring to. Also that mono rear channel in Dolby Stereo is an actual encoded channel derived from a discrete source. But you are right, it was designed for immersion, not realism.
No this is not a "fact". Not at all. It is your opinion based on your experience and some engineering knowledge and guesses. What you say makes reasonable sense based on standard, limited experience with stereo - but it is not a fact.
The brain and ears work in ways that are not always so easy to understand and pin down.
The ears cannot invent what is not there. Stereo cannot provide the spatial cues of the hall beyond the front soundstage, so it is incapable of "you are there" performance. While the ear/brain mechanism can fill in gaps, it cannot invent discrete side and rear information, and that is what is required for "you are there" playback. That is a fact.
I don't think you really know what my experience with stereo actually is. So your "limited" experience comment is not factual, but guess work as well.