I'll give you a link to a post that helped me get a perspective on this: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/177403-linkwitz-orions-beaten-behringer-what-157.html#post3403094
I hope that helps. It helped me when I was looking for an answer to that question.
Similar content, though it might be of use to enhance a mental picture: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/105136-putting-science-back-into-loudspeakers-12.html#post3145624
I would struggle putting into words this same concept. So I hope these posts from Tom Danley paint a more clear picture.
Last edited:
I'll give you a link to a post that helped me get a perspective on this: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/177403-linkwitz-orions-beaten-behringer-what-157.html#post3403094
I hope that helps. It helped me when I was looking for an answer to that question.
Similar content, though it might be of use to enhance a mental picture: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/105136-putting-science-back-into-loudspeakers-12.html#post3145624
I would struggle putting into words this same concept. So I hope these posts from Tom Danley paint a more clear picture.
Really interesting links.
Not the answer your hoping for: Yes I can. Read the links I provided. I'm not the only one.
Thanks. But if sources move or you, the listener moves, or sources are playing for very short periods only, such as one pizzicato note, or the sources are located in a highly reflective environment such as a row of columns (so there are strong early reflections and other tricks on the recording), can you still pinpoint them? Have you ever evaluated intelligibility (of position and content) of a phantom versus a real source? In my experience, two-loudspeakers stereo is that broken, that it makes no sense to stick to and improve anything about it. Center content played over a mono sounds much better than over a stereo, and the spatial differentiation delivered by a stereo is not worth that degradation of center content.
Last edited:
With many rooms/systems the stereo image falls apart when you move out of the small sweet spot, but there are rooms/systems that have a much larger sweet spot.
No one is making you
I would agree, but the majority of recordings are not multichannel. Unfortunately, a multi-channel format will need to become really mainstream before this happens and you can have the best of both mono and stereo.
Last edited:
"Center content played over a mono sounds much better than over a stereo". I've been trying to understand what exactly is meant by this. I perceive a mono signal played over stereo speakers as slap bang in the centre, maybe I'm just lucky, or maybe I'm lucky that my brain is able to do a good job of deceiving itself. How can it be better than what I am already experiencing?
Scott, we have the "Fixing the Phantom Center" discussion, which explains, why the Phantom Center is called that; it takes away some information of a real center. You may build three loudspeakers, feed the center loudspeaker L+R, play back a L=R signal and switch between left&rite and center loudspeaker, listening for differences. No matter how thoroly response and beaming of left&rite loudspeaker are tweaked, one can always hear the difference between real and phantom, just by moving one's head and listening for the sweeping of the interferences of the phantom.
Two-channel recordings are fine for transmitting center content, as long as the recording obeys the rule of synchronity of both channels (intensity, not run-time stereophonics). The problem is only playback, a solvable problem.
Two-channel recordings are fine for transmitting center content, as long as the recording obeys the rule of synchronity of both channels (intensity, not run-time stereophonics). The problem is only playback, a solvable problem.
This isn't always the case. In my 5.1 system with matched speakers, the phantom center channel consistently sounds more natural and realistic than the physical center speaker when listening to a proper multichannel mix. I can test this without much fuss, switching between 5.1 and 4.1 configurations by changing miniDSP presets.
This of course only applies to the normal seating position; if I get up and walk towards the center speaker, it then seems more "normal" when a voice is emanating from the physical center speaker than from the phantom center; but I don't see how this is really a valid test of anything since I don't normally listen there.
I haven't had time to figure this out yet, only to speculate. My current theory has to do with listening axes; perhaps my speakers are "dialed in" better at 30° off-axis (L and R) than they are dead-on (center), suggesting I need to work on their directivity characteristics some more. Or it might be the difference in room position between center and either side, so maybe I need to look at room treatment.
Actually, either of these is a fairly large difference to deal with, and may be impossible to fully correct or compensate for. I see this as a fairly strong argument in favor of the phantom center channel: The fact that it's being "created" from the same sources, in the same locations as the left & right sounds might actually make it sound more cohesive (at the normal listening position, of course). That sure seems like what's happening in my living room, anyway.
My main point here is that the effectiveness of a physical center channel may be subjective.
Last edited:
I can move from side to side and even up and down without losing imaging features.
Although I do have a sweet spot, it's more of a sweet area and no abnormalities occur moving your head.
I participated in the phantom centre thread as I did notice a slight tonal difference. This difference only caught my attention after removing first reflections trough absorption. I never noticed it before that.
I've researched the tonal differences and found a suitable solution. As described in that thread.
Removing the first reflections gave more defined pin point imaging. It became more stable when moving. Introducing later reflections (within the Haas limit) together with mild mid/side EQ was my personal favourite solution to overcome the tonal shift between centre and sides. A Haas kicker supplies the late reflections. It's virtual (ambient speakers) as I did not have the room for a passive solution using diffusors.
Most people that visited that thread didn't even recognise the tonal differences (probably due to some 'soft' reflections masking it). If you read Toole he proposes to keep some 'early' diffused reflections, guess why. If I look at the listening room from JBL I still wonder what he calls early. My room is not that large.
Although I do have a sweet spot, it's more of a sweet area and no abnormalities occur moving your head.
I participated in the phantom centre thread as I did notice a slight tonal difference. This difference only caught my attention after removing first reflections trough absorption. I never noticed it before that.
I've researched the tonal differences and found a suitable solution. As described in that thread.
Removing the first reflections gave more defined pin point imaging. It became more stable when moving. Introducing later reflections (within the Haas limit) together with mild mid/side EQ was my personal favourite solution to overcome the tonal shift between centre and sides. A Haas kicker supplies the late reflections. It's virtual (ambient speakers) as I did not have the room for a passive solution using diffusors.
Most people that visited that thread didn't even recognise the tonal differences (probably due to some 'soft' reflections masking it). If you read Toole he proposes to keep some 'early' diffused reflections, guess why. If I look at the listening room from JBL I still wonder what he calls early. My room is not that large.
In my mono system, i somewhat miss the phantom image lack of precision delivered by common place stereo systems.
I swear that in spite of gradually becoming the mainstream standard, mono ( or quasi-mono) sucks like hell...
I swear that in spite of gradually becoming the mainstream standard, mono ( or quasi-mono) sucks like hell...
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I kinda feel sorry for you if you can't hear how good stereo is/can be and you need a center source to get a central image.
May be there is something wrong with your system or listening environment.
Or may be you just keep looking at the speakers. That can screw things up big time since the visual cortex always takes precedence over the aural, our brains are just programmed that way. Pinpointing the perceived sources accurately is dead easy with my eyes closed, more difficult when open.
May be there is something wrong with your system or listening environment.
Or may be you just keep looking at the speakers. That can screw things up big time since the visual cortex always takes precedence over the aural, our brains are just programmed that way. Pinpointing the perceived sources accurately is dead easy with my eyes closed, more difficult when open.
The aural cortex of mainsteam guys like me is the biggest threat the audio industry will have to face in a very near future, added to the sad reality that mainsteam guys economy is as broken in western as in eastern world.
Mediocrity will rule in audio for the decades to come, as in most sectors of average human life...
Mediocrity will rule in audio for the decades to come, as in most sectors of average human life...
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.