Ok, in the patent it is stated "It can be shown that..."But no proof of that 'show' ?
Maybe the answer is so simple that no peer reviewed article is not needed ?
How about DIY, within the fanatic spirit of this forum ?
If it's out of the question, then search articles about vector analysis of stereo field. I'm sure they exist since the early days. I remember papers from Gerzon and Farina et all that deal with the matter.
- Elias
Did you ever look at this: http://www.hauptmikrofon.de/theile/ON_THE_LOCALISATION_english.pdf
Agree completely. It's only in small venues and/or sitting close to a small ensemble that "position" becomes easy to determine. From front-of-balcony or mid-orchestra seating it's often hard to tell which side of the stage a section is seated on. We seat antiphonal (firsts and seconds on opposite sides of the conductor), and even so it's hard to tell from out in the hall . . . you have to be quite close to really hear the separation.
I've heard moderately successful compromises with a variety of microphone placements, but to my ear the most successful (most "natural" or "realistic" imaging I've captured comes from near-coincident mics . . . either ORTF or ribbons similarly spaced but at 90 degrees to maintain the center. Neither X-Y nor M-S seem to me to work as well, and the spaced mics commonly found in US concert halls give a different, and to my ear less convincing, image. But to the extent that there is any positional information at all it's in the mic placement and the direct sound from the loudspeakers . . . while reflections in the listening room may fill in and provide a desirable sense of "spaciousness" they have little effect either way on "imaging", to my ears anyway. That's assuming, of course, that the listening room is halfway decent and properly set up, and that the listening room reflections come 10ms or more after the direct sound. Walls too close, either to speakers or listener or both, can mess up the positional information in the direct sound. Perhaps the close proximity of the "localization" speakers in the Watson setup helps with that, providing "binaural" localization cues (if present in the recording) while the mains pull the overall image out of the head and into the room.
However it works the listening position constraints far outweigh any potential benefits for me . . . as johnk has already noted, one doesn't hear "pinpoint localization" at a live performance. "Stereo" gives the "image" of a large source without necessarily providing precise localization within that source. That's what distinguishes it from point-source mono, where it is difficult to not hear the sound as coming specifically from the loudspeaker (often a problem with studio-mixed stereo as well).
Are we still assuming low freq localisation is based on ITD, and solely on ITD ? I hope so
Have you ever listened to band limited noise over headphones and level-panned it from left to right?
Well, SL usually tries to explain what he does with some theoretical bases, no? I would expect the same here.
That would be your interpretation. Sometimes words only mean exactly what they mean.
Moving on.
This is something I've long advocated.. especially when people start saying "listening room reflections are bad". Move the speakers away from walls and move closer to the speakers.
I also mentioned the same idea here with respect to "Watson":
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...-sound-single-loudspeaker-29.html#post2899911
It should be noted again though that when you increase the angle of speaker separation at *higher* freq.s that apparent separation can be too much - and for many can lead to increased localization of that "near" speaker depending on the program material (..and it's higher freq. content). Also diffraction can become more audible (depending on the speakers) and give conflicting positioning information of "images" produced by each speaker.
This may be a little different for dipoles with rear tweeters. My experience is as the listener moves closer to the plane of the speakers, provided the speakers are not angled toward the listener to compensate, the listener becomes more off axis and the highs are somewhat LP filtered (again, much like Watson). But at the same time the reflected high frequency from the wall behind the speakers tends compensate for the loss of direct high frequency, thus maintaining the spectral balanced. The result is that I don't find that the position of the speaker is not given away by the direct high frequency radiation as it would be if the speakers were aimed at the listener. You can't move too close though because you start to move into the dipole nulls.
There is just so much going on with the room and the ratio of direct to reflected sound that it is hard to a real fix on this. From my point of view, it it sound good then it is good.
Hi,
I see someone has re-invented Dynavector's "Super-Stereo".
In this application it would probably be easier to remove the rear tweeter and improve the directivity of the main speaker to a hyper-cardiodid instead...
Ciao T
I see someone has re-invented Dynavector's "Super-Stereo".
In this application it would probably be easier to remove the rear tweeter and improve the directivity of the main speaker to a hyper-cardiodid instead...
Ciao T
Yup, said the same thing myself:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...-sound-single-loudspeaker-29.html#post2899911
Well.. I thought the DIY business was about sharing, it's a friend thing for god sake, and I read comments here on the treshold of naivity, if not hostility. SL is NOT reiventing the weel.. and most of you seem to be way off the mark. Who has actually really tried the setup SL is describing, or even read the brief properly?
Come on guys, let's open up our brains a little bit!
Come on guys, let's open up our brains a little bit!
I've read about that system, but it seems to be somewhat different. Their side speakers are slightly in front of the listener, facing the front speakers. If I interpret the description correctly, they're not producing the same signal as the front speakers, time aligned at the listening position, but simply various delayed signals to enhance the feeling of spaciousness.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.