Jon, some cheap and simple DIY "Poly" Diffusers might give you that effect or something close to it. I plan on trying this out in the future.
https://www.lifewire.com/make-your-own-audio-diffuser-3134903
I think they would look really nice in some red or white felt!
Much cheaper than these bad boys!
They do offer the extra absorption over just diffusion though. Not worth the price difference imho. What it does give you is a dimension template. A poly diffuser 5" deep from wall to apex (furthest part) will diffuse above 500hz, and a 7" deep poly diffuser will diffuse above 300hz.Edit: If you end up making Poly diffusers, don't set them up side by side like this guy does! Just one per "first reflection point", if you don't already have absorption there.
Last edited:
I'm lucky enough not to have had any doubts that big.
Nor does Stereo need to have the limitations you described earlier. Not in my book anyway.
Nature as it evolved our brains does not emit exactly the same sonic signal from two distinct locations, because nature does not have electro-acoustic devices. The phantom center is an artificial phenomenon. Computer games with sudden dark/brite changes are said to cause epileptic fits, because nature does not have such sudden optical contrasts. Our brains are not adapted to that. And so stereos might make people mad. Now a computer game may have a medieval setting, with only caves and sunsets changing briteness. But a stereo artificially distorts everything, which is the same on both channels, such as mono. You cannot even hear the news over a full equilateral-triangle stereo, at least few people do that -- because everyone knows, that stereos are artificial. For every word spoken over a stereo two jokes are made in mono.
So why post on this thread? Why not go back to mono and leave us fools up to our games right here? No idea what you have been listening to. Sure it's artificial but it's based on our survival skills. You think we don't come across things like this in nature? Then how can a blind man find an obstacle by just making a few sounds and observe the results.
It's not like we don't have reflections out in nature, and we have learned to use them to observe our boundaries. With that in mind, I'll share a different way of looking at this phenomenon.
Quoted from:
Moulton Laboratories :: The Brave New World: Loudspeakers to the Left of Us! Loudspeakers to the Right of Us!
I think you downplay our abilities as humans. But if you don't believe in its merits, why even bother posting on a thread filled with mere fools that actually do enjoy Stereo?
You're not convincing me to abandon this concept. I'm having way too much fun with it.
Partly because all music I like (and the memories locked in there that make up the soundtrack of my life) is trapped into this format and I'm having a ball just listening to it.
Why be here if that's just not your thing?
It's not like we don't have reflections out in nature, and we have learned to use them to observe our boundaries. With that in mind, I'll share a different way of looking at this phenomenon.
Quoted from:
Moulton Laboratories :: The Brave New World: Loudspeakers to the Left of Us! Loudspeakers to the Right of Us!
I think you downplay our abilities as humans. But if you don't believe in its merits, why even bother posting on a thread filled with mere fools that actually do enjoy Stereo?
You're not convincing me to abandon this concept. I'm having way too much fun with it.
Partly because all music I like (and the memories locked in there that make up the soundtrack of my life) is trapped into this format and I'm having a ball just listening to it.
Why be here if that's just not your thing?
Last edited:
Low frequency rumble, earth movement, instilling a primaeval, instinctive fear of an unseen potential threat. Good fun in my book, and very real sensation
Hey Ron, Moultonlabs speak about inference, but this is not the real thing: If both loudspeakers are just emitting reflections, then the source must be located behind them, at the listener's location mirrored on the line between both loudspeakers, say far behind the back wall. Furthermore, why is the source dead silent, and only its reflections audible? Concerned with these questions, we would stand up, go around and hear, what is really going on. But doing so we are just ascertaining ourselves, that it is a fake.
Have you ever heard a real strong phantom source? Like playing mono over stereo speakers and only hear it coming from that phantom centre? Yes or no?
Obey the rules of stereo and it's right there. Playing mono is pretty weird, as you see the two boxes but no sound seems to come off of it at all. Eyes open or closed.
Depth perception is a totally different experience in real life compared to what you describe. One can vary the distance between the phantom centre and the listener by merely changing volume, as long as you have no other clues giving away the actual speaker position.
If you do the best you can to get clean impulses at the listening position, without early reflections bothering the first ~20 ms, you'll have no clue to where the speakers are located (eyes closed works even better, our sight perception is strong).
You'll even hear more of the space embedded in the recording (if it's in the recording). Far fetched? No, common studio practice. Then why do we have a full forum about loudspeakers but hardly anyone bothers to check what the room adds?
Same goes for the fact we listen with two ears. You've been in the threads where we openly discuss this. Is it a fact it changes our perception, listening with two ears, compared to a microphone? Yes. Can we do something about it? Yes.
So why is almost everyone else so focussed on making perfect speakers, overlooking this part of Stereo? Beats me, but if you closely examine some actual frequency responses and notice chosen deviations, and compare them with this very problem the relationship becomes more clear.
I certainly hope you're not one of the few that don't perceive a phantom centre. I haven't met anyone yet that had that problem, I do know they exist.
To come back to your statement, it's not like we hear a reflection and expect something to be (hidden) behind them, as long as we don't know how to pin point the origin of the reflections. So absence of early reflections and diffraction helps hide the actual speaker and it's position. Just try it. I can't point out where my speakers are with eyes closed based on my hearing, and I've tried to let guests do it, the stage goes wider than their actual position and is seamless. I make use of ambient channels, not for surround, for stereo enhancement. More hiding the room parts and helping our two ears make sense of it all. Works marvellous.
I can't afford having all original performers show up in my house to perform "live" for me. With what I've build I don't need to, from time to time it feels more like a time machine. Let me be fooled, I love it!
Obey the rules of stereo and it's right there. Playing mono is pretty weird, as you see the two boxes but no sound seems to come off of it at all. Eyes open or closed.
Depth perception is a totally different experience in real life compared to what you describe. One can vary the distance between the phantom centre and the listener by merely changing volume, as long as you have no other clues giving away the actual speaker position.
If you do the best you can to get clean impulses at the listening position, without early reflections bothering the first ~20 ms, you'll have no clue to where the speakers are located (eyes closed works even better, our sight perception is strong).
You'll even hear more of the space embedded in the recording (if it's in the recording). Far fetched? No, common studio practice. Then why do we have a full forum about loudspeakers but hardly anyone bothers to check what the room adds?
Same goes for the fact we listen with two ears. You've been in the threads where we openly discuss this. Is it a fact it changes our perception, listening with two ears, compared to a microphone? Yes. Can we do something about it? Yes.
So why is almost everyone else so focussed on making perfect speakers, overlooking this part of Stereo? Beats me, but if you closely examine some actual frequency responses and notice chosen deviations, and compare them with this very problem the relationship becomes more clear.
I certainly hope you're not one of the few that don't perceive a phantom centre. I haven't met anyone yet that had that problem, I do know they exist.
To come back to your statement, it's not like we hear a reflection and expect something to be (hidden) behind them, as long as we don't know how to pin point the origin of the reflections. So absence of early reflections and diffraction helps hide the actual speaker and it's position. Just try it. I can't point out where my speakers are with eyes closed based on my hearing, and I've tried to let guests do it, the stage goes wider than their actual position and is seamless. I make use of ambient channels, not for surround, for stereo enhancement. More hiding the room parts and helping our two ears make sense of it all. Works marvellous.
I can't afford having all original performers show up in my house to perform "live" for me. With what I've build I don't need to, from time to time it feels more like a time machine. Let me be fooled, I love it!
Last edited:
Low frequency rumble, earth movement, instilling a primaeval, instinctive fear of an unseen potential threat. Good fun in my book, and very real sensation
Indeed, it is fun... get the timing right in that bottom end, right there where you listen and it can get pretty scary! But there's way more to it. Feeling music on your eye lids, in your belly...
It's just a more complete sensation with the feel part in it. I tried to have a more PA like setup, cutting off below 40 Hz. I could get louder if I wanted but started to miss atmosphere. The sheer energy of it all.
I try to use as much as I can and know about our hearing mechanism to fool "us" with this Stereo concept. That bottom end is mandatory to get there. I'll probably get ridiculed about it, I don't care, but I believe timing to be essential too.
As measured at the listening spot from a stereo pair, top to bottom of the frequency spectrum within milliseconds. It also shows the absence of obvious reflections... the room and stereo system working together. In a pretty normal living room I might add.
Don't just adjust phase "somewhere" and expect it to be good enough. Measure it where it counts, and when it counts. Check that first wave front hitting your ears. Want to try? Download a demo version of APL_TDA. That's what was used for this graph.
I am fascinated by the wealth of technical knowledge and power there is now in audio, most of it is way over my head but I find it interesting none the less. I identify with the goal despite my ignorance of the means. I'm not able to do the research and experimentation that many do here (I'm jealous!) but love to watch and participate when I can. The end result of all this, that is, the wonderful illusion that it's possible to create and that I've also managed to come close to more by luck than judgement, gives me immense pleasure and it's great to share that with other people who feel the same.
If you like cheap and simple (and easy to build and very effective), you might want to check out my step diffusor design -- http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/construction-tips/269366-making-easy-diy-depot-sound-diffuser-panels-step-step.html
These diffuse both in direction and in time (poly types only diffuse in direction).
this is something else. where do i down load this
APL TDA, Time Delay Analysis software for PA and speaker measurement
This is a considerable point, and a frequently overlooked aspect in design. The more parts included in the replay chain, the greater the potential for induced distortion/time/phase errors.
Real breakthroughs, such as the Danley enclosures are as you describe - seamless.
Getting this right, for reasonable cost is what drives us on in our hobby.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
What's that, a trial? I already built loudspeakers, mono and stereo, when you were still making careers. As dirty as anything.
Sounds like a parroting mix. Where is stereo? Where is mono? Mono should be at the point closest to both loudspeakers, yet it is in an incredibly poor alien dimension, because just two loudspeakers cannot play mono rite.
Our Es does not want to admit, that we are taken on a cheap alien ride. We are fumbling for a conceptual grip and start to seize in fever.
Yes, you have no clue.
Thy loudspeakers are not the holy grail, many ways lead to Rome. Many records are made dry, for dispersive loudspeakers will fill the listener's room with that room, so it does not need a recorded room. This is the livelier way, because sound will come from all sides and not only from the two loudspeakers. It prolly will not sound like Abbey Road Studio II, tho, but what the heck, Live is Live.
No trail, just a simple question.
You may be older than me, no idea, I build my first set of speakers in about 1978, a Stereo pair with a Philips tube radio powering it and open baffle midrange, ported bass underneath. But that really doesn't matter. Plenty of time to make up your mind if you like Stereo or not. I like it. So much, I spend three years straight optimising it.
Mono should play like a phantom centre and only a phantom centre on Stereo speakers. If it's not than you will have a huge problem. And they can play mono "right". Not that they have to do that often over here, aside from a couple of '60's songs I have in mono only.
No idea who this Es is, but I said it before and I'll say it again. I'm trying as hard as I can to make the stereo illusion as strong as I can. By using all I've learned about our hearing perception. No loss of control on my side.
It seems to me you are the one on the wrong thread. As you seem unwilling to fool your brain.
Yes, you have no clue.
Indeed, I have no clue what you're trying to tell us. If you say: "Stereo is a broken concept" then I'll kindly disagree. It works perfectly fine for a lot of us.
I never said my speakers are the holy grail. But at least I know very well why I went with this concept of mine. In a bigger room and without a spouse I might have gone with big Synergy horns. Or even bigger Altecs.
The first post in my thread contains 4 reviews by people that heard and listened to what I have. 3 Of them members here on this forum. I've heard and read no complaints that I fooled them into hearing a phantom illusion. That was the whole point of my setup and their visit.
You seem to have little or actually no clue (at all) what it is I'm doing with my ambient channels. If you think I'm splashing the room with sound, think again. You would have missed the entire point as to why I have them.
Even in Abbey Road Studio II (or any other studio for that matter) they will have put an effort into preserving the energy and re-distributing it. I absorb a lot of the early energy, as my room is too small to use diffusion and "fake" a bigger room by adding a little back timed later than my room would normally allow. Fully controlled in spectrum and SPL amount. Probably a lot less than an average person on this forum gets.
You'd never know or guess there are any ambient speakers. Hard to grasp? I take control over my reflections, all of them. Early and late. The late ones are not real, as fake as a stereo phantom centre.
When will you answer the question? Why are you posting on a thread you do not believe in?
I'll say Mono speakers can't play Stereo right. Why is it so hard to believe a lot of people actually like Stereo. It isn't a problem for us that you're not liking it. But try and tell us what you're getting out of this. Or what it is you want us to know.
Do you have a grudge against people that enjoy Stereo? You've visited my thread and had opinions about everything without even knowing what it is I do.
I still don't think you know. In your world it just can't be right, as I use DSP.
Lighten up! There are people that enjoy Stereo and those who don't. Make up your mind on what train ride you want to be...
If you don't answer the crucial question this time, the one asking: "what is your point in posting about a concept you do not believe in" you'll get no reply from me again. This is boring me and it serves no purpose.
Ron, in psychoanalysis the Es means the we-mean-so-but-do-not-admit-it, the Ueber-Ich is the we-say-so, and the Ich is the I.
This is not princepally about preference but about soundstage and imaging, both terms which have clears meanings in common language. Hearing the sonic image of a soundstage means to be able to hear, at which positions acoustic sources such as musicians or speakers are located. Sonic imaging also includes to hear the size, shape and damping of a room.
All stereos should be able to play center content well. Mono is fixed center content, unless you switch off one channel of your two-loudspeakers stereo, in which case mono is mono.
If one omni-directional loudspeaker would play in my living room, I would be able to point and go to and touch it, eyes closed. Let this be the bassist at the left stage end. Problem with the sax man on the rite end neither. But the drummer in the middle I cannot meet, I dunno where to turn to, he comes from two locations at the same time. Two-loudspeakers stereos cannot reproduce a soundstage, because no soundstage is complete without its middle, and two-loudspeakers stereos cannot reproduce the middle.
Speaking of imaging in a broader sense and creating athmosphere, I believe, that the listening room may find a balance between dead and live. Ron's approach is quite dead and focused on virtue. There is a real life and it is manifold; for example Antroposophy teaches and builds rooms with odd angles, yet others like to play in the park.
This is not princepally about preference but about soundstage and imaging, both terms which have clears meanings in common language. Hearing the sonic image of a soundstage means to be able to hear, at which positions acoustic sources such as musicians or speakers are located. Sonic imaging also includes to hear the size, shape and damping of a room.
All stereos should be able to play center content well. Mono is fixed center content, unless you switch off one channel of your two-loudspeakers stereo, in which case mono is mono.
If one omni-directional loudspeaker would play in my living room, I would be able to point and go to and touch it, eyes closed. Let this be the bassist at the left stage end. Problem with the sax man on the rite end neither. But the drummer in the middle I cannot meet, I dunno where to turn to, he comes from two locations at the same time. Two-loudspeakers stereos cannot reproduce a soundstage, because no soundstage is complete without its middle, and two-loudspeakers stereos cannot reproduce the middle.
Speaking of imaging in a broader sense and creating athmosphere, I believe, that the listening room may find a balance between dead and live. Ron's approach is quite dead and focused on virtue. There is a real life and it is manifold; for example Antroposophy teaches and builds rooms with odd angles, yet others like to play in the park.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.