Elias --
You can find the images by right clicking and copying the image url and then paste this into the search field of "WaybackMachine": Internet Archive: Wayback Machine
I tried this with the first 3 missing images and they were all archived. Good luck.
You can find the images by right clicking and copying the image url and then paste this into the search field of "WaybackMachine": Internet Archive: Wayback Machine
I tried this with the first 3 missing images and they were all archived. Good luck.
Thanks, I managed to see most of the pics. It turned out to be nothing revolutionary but just explanation of the radiation pattern of a line array in a room.
- Elias
- Elias
Markus,
The wings ! Do they help in stereolith to generate a phantom image from amplitude panned source material ?
I would say they should help a bit, by dividing the room in two, the bigger the baffles the more it approaches Ambiophonics with physical barrier.
- Elias
The wings ! Do they help in stereolith to generate a phantom image from amplitude panned source material ?
I would say they should help a bit, by dividing the room in two, the bigger the baffles the more it approaches Ambiophonics with physical barrier.
- Elias
Phantom image requires two coordinated sound sources working in tandem to produce and place said phantom.
This would require the stereolith and each sidewall all working together to pan that image to the right place. As a passive and un-adjustable Stereolith cannot adjust for signal errors by 1) distance to the wall, and distance from sidewall to listener (causing both amplitude AND signal delay) 2) absorption by the wall, and 3) directivity of reflection by the wall . . . . it's impossible for an image to appear where it should, if at all. The distance factors alone cause at least 4 dB of attenuation and 10 ms of delay in an average room. This is significant! It will vary substantially with room dimensions, orientation, etc. 'All wild cards that a passive box cannot begin to address.
I know one poster was upset a while ago by my use of words such as "impossible", but I still maintain this to be a correct assertion. It's simply the realities of acoustics and how phantoms are created.
Having said all that, it's still a fine idea for providing spaciousness, perceived reality, musical enhancement, etc. However, it simply cannot deliver Fidelity!
-- Mark
Template for future posters:
Dear forum members,
I have not tried this concept myself and thus I have no personal experience with the concept but here I would like to present a lot of assumptions as a proof of why this system cannot work [enter your assumption here]
It also took me a lot of time to think and come up with all the possible reasons why it cannot work, but I rather took that time than simply tried the concept by myself.
Sincerely Yours,
Dear forum members,
I have not tried this concept myself and thus I have no personal experience with the concept but here I would like to present a lot of assumptions as a proof of why this system cannot work [enter your assumption here]
It also took me a lot of time to think and come up with all the possible reasons why it cannot work, but I rather took that time than simply tried the concept by myself.
Sincerely Yours,
Last edited:
To the the sonic information in the source material.
Note that I don't say faithful to the original event itself -- We all know recordings can be very unfaithful to the original event, for reasons ranging from incompetence to corporate greed. Dead horse--no beating required.
So, that only leaves us to consider the accuracy of our playback when compared to the sonic information provided on the recordings we have. "Sonic information" means just that. Frequency, amplitude, phase, etc all need to be reproduced accurately at the listeners ears if Hi-Fidelity is to be achieved.
As Marcus and others have pointed-out, the standard stereo listening triangle (warts and all) is a long-standing convention that provides listeners at least some degree of Fidelity in playback.
A system that can playback a very intentional localization track accurately is more faithful to the sonic information in the source than a system that generally cannot reproduce these fundamental stereo events. Fidelity of this sort can be verified. It's not just some opinion.
If one person has achieved bona-fide accurate Stereolith phantom image placement, that's wonderful. I only point out that the stereolith concept, (as independently verified by others here, including on the real stereolith), generally does not place lateral images accurately.
None of this means I don't like the Stereolith, or have any problem with someone choosing it over other systems. I am convinced it is the better choice on some program material. Every 2-channel playback setup ever devised has to face the same tradeoffs, and choose its poison. As mentioned before, the Stereolith trades lateral imaging accuracy for a greatly improved center image; I'm perfectly glad to point out the frailty of center images as the biggest downside to traditional stereo.
I'm on this forum because I love good audio, good music, and good acoustics. While I don't know much, it should be okay for me to share the things I do know; I count on others to do the same for me. I think we can all agree that it's no fun to hang around a room that only permits endless speculation.
-Mark
Last edited:
Here are two stereo sound samples of a tom with varying interchannel time delay.
1) Left channel delayed between 0-40 samples in 10 samples steps
2) Right channel delayed between 0-40 samples in 10 samples steps
When listening over headphones the sound moves to the left and the right. When listening over the stereolith, the sound doesn't move to the left or the right. I does a slight upward motion and the distance increases.
1) Left channel delayed between 0-40 samples in 10 samples steps
2) Right channel delayed between 0-40 samples in 10 samples steps
When listening over headphones the sound moves to the left and the right. When listening over the stereolith, the sound doesn't move to the left or the right. I does a slight upward motion and the distance increases.
The tom have no enegry in the midrange. If you look the waveform It's a short burst of treble followed by ringing tone of 100-200Hz.
- Elias
- Elias
Hi,
I agree, and it is even encouraged to experiment. I should have done these tests two years ago, I could have saved all this time with a greater knowledge. Speculation leads to nothing.
Also it is more positive mindset to read the books with the attitude "I want to find out why this works" instead of "I want to find reasons why this cannot work".
It's a big step for an individual to try something which does not make sense according to the his previous knowledge about the subject. It takes extraordinary curiosity to break the chains of conventionalism.
- Elias
I agree, and it is even encouraged to experiment. I should have done these tests two years ago, I could have saved all this time with a greater knowledge. Speculation leads to nothing.
Also it is more positive mindset to read the books with the attitude "I want to find out why this works" instead of "I want to find reasons why this cannot work".
It's a big step for an individual to try something which does not make sense according to the his previous knowledge about the subject. It takes extraordinary curiosity to break the chains of conventionalism.
- Elias
Here's a cello:
1) Left channel delayed 0 and 40 samples
2) Right channel delayed 0 and 40 samples
Same perceptual result. The cello is localized in the center with some distance.
1) Left channel delayed 0 and 40 samples
2) Right channel delayed 0 and 40 samples
Same perceptual result. The cello is localized in the center with some distance.
Last edited:
Female speech:
1) Left channel delayed 0 and 40 samples
2) Right channel delayed 0 and 40 samples
Same perceptual results. No distinct phantom image.
1) Left channel delayed 0 and 40 samples
2) Right channel delayed 0 and 40 samples
Same perceptual results. No distinct phantom image.
Renamed it. Should work now.
By the way, all these files are based on anechoic mono recordings. Brass sample is coming up...
Brass:
1) Left channel delayed 0 and 40 samples
2) Right channel delayed 0 and 40 samples
Same perceptual results. No distinct phantom image with Stereolith.
1) Left channel delayed 0 and 40 samples
2) Right channel delayed 0 and 40 samples
Same perceptual results. No distinct phantom image with Stereolith.
Thanks Markus!
Very revealing ! This is a breakthrough ! First I also got almost no imaging.. But then I realised I was listening much too close when I was at 2 m distance. Then I moved myself backwards up to 5 m distance and there it is imaging ! This is crazy, you must be in the diffuse field to get imaging out of this system !
I got imaging from all the samples.
I want to know which book explains this?
- Elias
Very revealing ! This is a breakthrough ! First I also got almost no imaging.. But then I realised I was listening much too close when I was at 2 m distance. Then I moved myself backwards up to 5 m distance and there it is imaging ! This is crazy, you must be in the diffuse field to get imaging out of this system !
I got imaging from all the samples.I want to know which book explains this?
- Elias
Another breakthrough !
While at the 5 m distance I turned the balance knob to change the L and R levels, and image moves side to side ! This system also works with amplitude panning if you are in the diffuse field ! In the near field is does not work so well.
You must try it by yourself. My explanation is just a vain attempt.
- Elias
While at the 5 m distance I turned the balance knob to change the L and R levels, and image moves side to side ! This system also works with amplitude panning if you are in the diffuse field ! In the near field is does not work so well.
You must try it by yourself. My explanation is just a vain attempt.
- Elias
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.