I have them running up to 3.5 kHz, 12 db/oct.
The left ambient speaker is getting (L-R) and the right ambient is getting (R-L). They are delayed to be ~17 ms behind the main peak. I have them fire to the sides from behind my couch, indirectly bouncing off of nearby reflective surfaces. They are about 12 dB down from the mains. I mix in a little phantom centre at an even lower level, timed about 3 ms sooner than the (L-R) and (R-L).
I do not hear them separately, they do however create more sense of space.
At first it was just the ambient channels, which I tested in a variety of different directions, like up firing, front firing and settled on the side firing direction. They are corrected trough FIR filters, but no phase restore, just for frequency balance. At a later date I added a touch of reverb (random hall) after first experimenting with using IR's (of real measured ambience) of actual spaces.
You shouldn't notice it's there until it is turned off. It can be a powerful addition to the front stage. A diffused arrival was my goal, with a frequency balance that is shaped like the in room response of the mains.
I often listen to those ambient channels by themselves, which gives a notion of a distant sound field. I listen to the separation of the channels and left right balance to match the front.
The bit of phantom I add is running up to 4.5 kHz, also with 12 dB/Oct.
Some graphs can be found here. Only missing the low pass filter in the FR response.
Play with it, try a few things
. Have the delay shorter and notice the change in room sound (sounds much more "wet") compared to a longer delay. To get an idea what it can do, play with the volume level. Whenever it is timed after the main peak they can be pretty loud and still blend in. They do change the perception of the room you're in if all goes well.
As I said before, my goal is to hide the real room and not as much influence the tonal impression. With the low end capability of yours you might want to try a hair of reverb to add a sense of a bigger space. The reverb itself is also infinitely adjustable and runs less high up in frequency with a knee around 1 kHz for early reflections and starting as low as 100 Hz for late ones.
Imagine all the adjustability's and you'll understand it took weeks of experimenting (and having fun with it) to get to a point where I thought: yes, that's it!
For orchestral music it is fun to have the reverb run a bit higher in volume and really get a full blown orchestral feeling out in the room with lots of excitement. Late reverb timed right really does give a sense of envelopment.
Do play with some real measured IR's too, I forgot where I got them from, there are lots of them freely available, I think I remember it was trough ambiophonics.org that I found the first of those.
Correct, here they are... I tried lots more sourced from different places. In the end a Lexicon Random Hall algorithm was hard to beat. Still it was fun to try!
My goal of hiding the room is way different from all the experiments I did to learn what does what. I still do experiments like that as it's easy to change up a few variables. My basic setting though is pretty conservative, barely noticeable, except for what it does for the front stage.
Run it up high and timed late you will notice there is a frequency limit to the Haas effect. Meaning the much mentioned number of 25 to 35 ms is only valid up to a certain frequency. Running the ambience up to 7 kHz gave me (obvious) queues from behind at 20 ms after the main peak. Not noticeable when timed 9 ms after the main peak etc...
The left ambient speaker is getting (L-R) and the right ambient is getting (R-L). They are delayed to be ~17 ms behind the main peak. I have them fire to the sides from behind my couch, indirectly bouncing off of nearby reflective surfaces. They are about 12 dB down from the mains. I mix in a little phantom centre at an even lower level, timed about 3 ms sooner than the (L-R) and (R-L).
I do not hear them separately, they do however create more sense of space.
At first it was just the ambient channels, which I tested in a variety of different directions, like up firing, front firing and settled on the side firing direction. They are corrected trough FIR filters, but no phase restore, just for frequency balance. At a later date I added a touch of reverb (random hall) after first experimenting with using IR's (of real measured ambience) of actual spaces.
You shouldn't notice it's there until it is turned off. It can be a powerful addition to the front stage. A diffused arrival was my goal, with a frequency balance that is shaped like the in room response of the mains.
I often listen to those ambient channels by themselves, which gives a notion of a distant sound field. I listen to the separation of the channels and left right balance to match the front.
The bit of phantom I add is running up to 4.5 kHz, also with 12 dB/Oct.
Some graphs can be found here. Only missing the low pass filter in the FR response.
Play with it, try a few things
. Have the delay shorter and notice the change in room sound (sounds much more "wet") compared to a longer delay. To get an idea what it can do, play with the volume level. Whenever it is timed after the main peak they can be pretty loud and still blend in. They do change the perception of the room you're in if all goes well.As I said before, my goal is to hide the real room and not as much influence the tonal impression. With the low end capability of yours you might want to try a hair of reverb to add a sense of a bigger space. The reverb itself is also infinitely adjustable and runs less high up in frequency with a knee around 1 kHz for early reflections and starting as low as 100 Hz for late ones.
Imagine all the adjustability's and you'll understand it took weeks of experimenting (and having fun with it) to get to a point where I thought: yes, that's it!
For orchestral music it is fun to have the reverb run a bit higher in volume and really get a full blown orchestral feeling out in the room with lots of excitement. Late reverb timed right really does give a sense of envelopment.
Do play with some real measured IR's too, I forgot where I got them from, there are lots of them freely available, I think I remember it was trough ambiophonics.org that I found the first of those.
Correct, here they are... I tried lots more sourced from different places. In the end a Lexicon Random Hall algorithm was hard to beat. Still it was fun to try!
My goal of hiding the room is way different from all the experiments I did to learn what does what. I still do experiments like that as it's easy to change up a few variables. My basic setting though is pretty conservative, barely noticeable, except for what it does for the front stage.
Run it up high and timed late you will notice there is a frequency limit to the Haas effect. Meaning the much mentioned number of 25 to 35 ms is only valid up to a certain frequency. Running the ambience up to 7 kHz gave me (obvious) queues from behind at 20 ms after the main peak. Not noticeable when timed 9 ms after the main peak etc...
Last edited:
One more thing to add to the above before I sign off, in my first post in this thread I added two links for my ambience experiments. If you follow the thread from there, there's lots of interesting (I think so ) talk with some David Griesinger papers and lots of cool input from Jim1961 and others...
I tried to keep this crazy thread organized by providing those links, pretty hard to do with over 400 pages.
) talk with some David Griesinger papers and lots of cool input from Jim1961 and others...I tried to keep this crazy thread organized by providing those links, pretty hard to do with over 400 pages.
Thanks for the great info! I've just started the experiments. I've noticed that tonally, I'm at a good place right now, or, thinking about it another way, I can make it sound however I like using DRC. But I feel there is a lack of envelopment, especially because I'm sitting 14-16 ft away from the arrays. That is why I thought adding some artificial reverb from behind to make it more "wet," as you described, might be pleasing.
Fluid sent me his Fabfilter files and I loaded them in JRiver. I gave it a listen and it changed the tonal balance, but I did not notice any changes in imaging. I need to listen some more, give it a fair shake.
Fluid sent me his Fabfilter files and I loaded them in JRiver. I gave it a listen and it changed the tonal balance, but I did not notice any changes in imaging. I need to listen some more, give it a fair shake.
I forgot to write, that I have lived with this mid/side eq for some time now and listened to it on and off. It really makes the central part of the soundfield much more clear and natural and it is noticeable (if not equally important) on all I have played. I do not listen to music without it now. I haven´t yet experimented with the curves or levels as it works wonders as is.. Thanks again to Wesayso and Fluid
You're welcome, hope you get something out of it. Late reverb should get you some sense of envelopment. Might be easier to overdo it first to get the hang of it.
If you really detect a tonal change it might be worthwhile to adjust the tonal balance. Fluid started with a curve aimed to include this mid/side EQ later on. It is possible your tonal preference is adjusted for the center vocal parts. Just keep the mid/side as is and re-adjust overall tonal balance to match what you had. It should work... small changes can do a lot for perception here. Most noticeable: intelligibility of centre vocal should improve. If you started with a tonal curve for that phantom part, the biggest improvement should be in the sides. It is aimed to make tonal balance more equal across the entire stage.
I forgot to write, that I have lived with this mid/side eq for some time now and listened to it on and off. It really makes the central part of the soundfield much more clear and natural and it is noticeable (if not equally important) on all I have played. I do not listen to music without it now. I haven´t yet experimented with the curves or levels as it works wonders as is.. Thanks again to Wesayso and Fluid
Great to read! That's exactly what it should do!
Last edited:
I knew you'd warm up to it . It has been one of my most fun and rewarding experiments. I was inspired by werewolf to try it (back in 2008/2009), the same one giving the interesting lecture on point source vs line source. I had to wait years to actually be able to try it. I never forgot about it though. I'm glad to read it started to "come alive" for you!
. It has been one of my most fun and rewarding experiments. I was inspired by werewolf to try it (back in 2008/2009), the same one giving the interesting lecture on point source vs line source. I had to wait years to actually be able to try it. I never forgot about it though. I'm glad to read it started to "come alive" for you!
The music blasting out of the speakers on a Saturday is turning into a real family event lately. Which is a lot of fun. I get to listen in a lot more places, walking trough the home while others pick out favourite songs.
During this week I changed the ambient balance and I love what I have right now. Back at the relatively late 17 ms after the main pulse, I changed the balance to mimic the downward slope of the mains, where before they were pretty flat up till the 12 dB/oct low pass.
This works quite well for me. Lots of songs were played... most memorable has to be these two:
Pink Floyd - Shine On You Crazy Diamond (part One)
and a surprise:
The Temptations - Papa Was a Rollin' Stone
I had played that Temptations track before, it never really sounded as good as this time.
The better I get at the balance between mains and ambience, the better it sounds in the whole house. Still rocking out in the adjoining kitchen. Many more lovely songs passed by.
The Floyd track took me back to my youth, when I was in my tiny little bedroom at home, with an old Philips tube radio and open baffle speakers hearing this track on the radio many times late at night. I have loved it ever since. Must have been in my early teens.
The radio was one a lot like this:
I had taken out the side speakers and made an open baffle housing for them. There were (old wharfedale) bass speakers underneath an a couple of car tweeters above. At low night time volume I remember enjoying this sound very much. The speakers were stacked one upon the other, my mom has bumped into them more than once, furious at me for having them that far out in the room. Good memories .
Maybe an honourable mention for the Trevor Horn mix of Grace Jones - Slave to the Rhythm (blooded)
A track that passed by recently on the radio while being in the car... She was born in Jamaica, Raised in America...
Fun!
During this week I changed the ambient balance and I love what I have right now. Back at the relatively late 17 ms after the main pulse, I changed the balance to mimic the downward slope of the mains, where before they were pretty flat up till the 12 dB/oct low pass.
This works quite well for me. Lots of songs were played... most memorable has to be these two:
Pink Floyd - Shine On You Crazy Diamond (part One)
and a surprise:
The Temptations - Papa Was a Rollin' Stone
I had played that Temptations track before, it never really sounded as good as this time.
The better I get at the balance between mains and ambience, the better it sounds in the whole house. Still rocking out in the adjoining kitchen. Many more lovely songs passed by.
The Floyd track took me back to my youth, when I was in my tiny little bedroom at home, with an old Philips tube radio and open baffle speakers hearing this track on the radio many times late at night. I have loved it ever since. Must have been in my early teens.
The radio was one a lot like this:
I had taken out the side speakers and made an open baffle housing for them. There were (old wharfedale) bass speakers underneath an a couple of car tweeters above. At low night time volume I remember enjoying this sound very much. The speakers were stacked one upon the other, my mom has bumped into them more than once, furious at me for having them that far out in the room
. Good memories .Maybe an honourable mention for the Trevor Horn mix of Grace Jones - Slave to the Rhythm (blooded)
A track that passed by recently on the radio while being in the car... She was born in Jamaica, Raised in America...
Fun!
Attachments
Last edited:
Another listening experiment this morning. Again, moving the reflections earlier in time, 9 ms after the main peak. With the balance change in it's ambient content it surprised me on a few tracks. I need to listen to way more material but on some songs, this relatively early timing of reflections was just wonderful.
I do notice it "feels" smaller than the later timing did. Intimate might be a good word for it. At the listening spot it was very cool though, how you're almost part of the auditory scene (almost like being able to touch the notes). Lucky me, I can change this on the fly .
Songs I tested with this that worked really well:
Malia & Boris Blank - Raising Venus
Frank Zappa - Find Her Finer
Pirates of the Caribbean - He's a Pirate
and a few others... ran out of time to test it all, I was pleasantly surprised.
I know I'm going to have to spend way more time on the timing of the ambience.
It has such a big influence on how I perceive the imaging.
Sometimes it's way too much variables that can be changed. This balance was just wonderful, but it was different from my last test with early timed reflections.
It's all in the details and the recordings themselves how it gels together. Tomorrow I'll try some other songs that I think might also work real well. Friday I hope to have more time, trying some of my favourites from last Saturday...
I might prefer different settings when moving about the house as compared to sitting right there in the sweet spot. The later timed ambience seemed more neutral(*) in previous tests, which worked well from a lot of different spots in the room, even way off axis.
(*) While I say this, this morning the sound was pretty neutral to my ears. I might have to make up my mind again by living with the short delay for a longer time. It sure is closer, more intimate. I do need more time to see if these benefits last. It's one thing to be dazzled in a single listening session. Only time will tell if that lasts.
I do notice it "feels" smaller than the later timing did. Intimate might be a good word for it. At the listening spot it was very cool though, how you're almost part of the auditory scene (almost like being able to touch the notes
). Lucky me, I can change this on the fly .Songs I tested with this that worked really well:
Malia & Boris Blank - Raising Venus
Frank Zappa - Find Her Finer
Pirates of the Caribbean - He's a Pirate
and a few others... ran out of time to test it all, I was pleasantly surprised.
I know I'm going to have to spend way more time on the timing of the ambience.
It has such a big influence on how I perceive the imaging.
Sometimes it's way too much variables that can be changed. This balance was just wonderful, but it was different from my last test with early timed reflections.
It's all in the details and the recordings themselves how it gels together. Tomorrow I'll try some other songs that I think might also work real well. Friday I hope to have more time, trying some of my favourites from last Saturday...
I might prefer different settings when moving about the house as compared to sitting right there in the sweet spot. The later timed ambience seemed more neutral(*) in previous tests, which worked well from a lot of different spots in the room, even way off axis.
(*) While I say this, this morning the sound was pretty neutral to my ears. I might have to make up my mind again by living with the short delay for a longer time. It sure is closer, more intimate. I do need more time to see if these benefits last. It's one thing to be dazzled in a single listening session. Only time will tell if that lasts.
Last edited:
I hope to do some ambient timing experiments today.
There are pretty large differences in the perception, I still find it hard to say which one I prefer. I'll try and do it one tweak at a time to see where my preference lies. And find out if it's different for different kind of recordings.
I don't expect answers in one afternoon, I do expect it to be interesting at least.
There are pretty large differences in the perception, I still find it hard to say which one I prefer. I'll try and do it one tweak at a time to see where my preference lies. And find out if it's different for different kind of recordings.
I don't expect answers in one afternoon, I do expect it to be interesting at least.
Well, so much for a set program... based on the results I had in previous settings I took a gamble on what to set where, based on prior results.
It's intoxicating and inspiring, or should I say jaw dropping.
I know I have mentioned this often enough, I'll just repeat it one more time: it pays off to take control over the listening room. This ambience addition (together with the mid/side tweaks) is the best thing I've ever done. Maybe aside from all the FIR processing. This is too much fun!
I'll go on listening now, but I ain't touching no dials
It's intoxicating and inspiring, or should I say jaw dropping
.I know I have mentioned this often enough, I'll just repeat it one more time: it pays off to take control over the listening room. This ambience addition (together with the mid/side tweaks) is the best thing I've ever done. Maybe aside from all the FIR processing. This is too much fun!
I'll go on listening now, but I ain't touching no dials
I guess (and hope) you will find that different recordings(live vs studio) will demand different settings of the ambience channel in order to give the best result. A little like moving the walls or tweaking the absorption in the room with a twist of a knob
Well, as said I was having way too much fun within the first try .
I'll admit most of what I listen to is studio recorded material. However with these ambient tweaks things come alive in a big manor.
What I did was use the preferred setting for the cross talk task for the ambient centre and shorter delay settings for the (L-R) and (L-R) portion of my ambient mix.
Now the centre mix will always contain a portion of left and right side info. We cannot make a clear separation of 2 channel signals, at least not within the usual mid/side mixing tools.
By setting the ambient sides to ~9 ms behind the main peak and having the centre at about 15 ms I got a very enjoyable mix of ambience enhancement with clear imaging.
This might be an exaggeration in practice (meaning I will grow tired of it) but it served it's point that I got great imaging qualities together with a very pleasant ambience feel.
I turned down the centre portion a bit to maximise it's effect on intelligibility (just by trying out the levels) on the perceived centre.
I have tried many combinations up till this point, though I had never tried to keep reflections relatively late for centre and a bit earlier for the left and right parts of the ambient channels. The results were very entertaining.
As always I ran out of time, would have loved to try many many more songs.
I bet there will be sweet spots for different genre's depending on what you want to get out of it. What I aim for is pleasant sound everywhere while keeping the fruits at the sweet spot. In the adjoining kitchen the sound coming from the living room more closely resembles what a live performance should sound like. Yes, I know I talked about studio recordings, but even those can be thrillingly real sounding with a bit of ambience.
.I'll admit most of what I listen to is studio recorded material. However with these ambient tweaks things come alive in a big manor.
What I did was use the preferred setting for the cross talk task for the ambient centre and shorter delay settings for the (L-R) and (L-R) portion of my ambient mix.
Now the centre mix will always contain a portion of left and right side info. We cannot make a clear separation of 2 channel signals, at least not within the usual mid/side mixing tools.
By setting the ambient sides to ~9 ms behind the main peak and having the centre at about 15 ms I got a very enjoyable mix of ambience enhancement with clear imaging.
This might be an exaggeration in practice (meaning I will grow tired of it) but it served it's point that I got great imaging qualities together with a very pleasant ambience feel.
I turned down the centre portion a bit to maximise it's effect on intelligibility (just by trying out the levels) on the perceived centre.
I have tried many combinations up till this point, though I had never tried to keep reflections relatively late for centre and a bit earlier for the left and right parts of the ambient channels. The results were very entertaining.
As always I ran out of time, would have loved to try many many more songs.
I bet there will be sweet spots for different genre's depending on what you want to get out of it. What I aim for is pleasant sound everywhere while keeping the fruits at the sweet spot. In the adjoining kitchen the sound coming from the living room more closely resembles what a live performance should sound like. Yes, I know I talked about studio recordings, but even those can be thrillingly real sounding with a bit of ambience.
To go on a bit further, I'll address some generalities I often read. Many times I read that people try FIR processing to aid their listening pleasure.
Or build some excellent performing speakers with a very flat and equal FR.
After listening to it they are slightly disappointed. It's kinda dull compared to what they had or heard before. I've come across these kind of reports a lot.
My first encounter with FIR filtering was similar. I went from a wild and entertaining sound (IIR EQ) to a tamed version, as if someone shrunk my arrays. It wasn't long after that that I reported better luck with a bit of filtering turned on in JRiver. Most probably remember me rave about the surround field effect within JRivers filters.
It had similarities to some store bough processors that were doing mid/side processing.
The more damping panels that were added to my room, the more brave the results became. However with that mid/side surround field tweak it was very entertaining at the listening spot, imaging worked very well and precise. It wasn't quite right though, off axis the overall balance was gone. Central panned voices were soft in comparison to the surrounding music.
With placing the panel at the back of the listening position a sense of envelopment was gone. Replaced with a more strong and detailed imaging quality.
Quickly after introducing the ambience channels I realized I could now dial in that quality of ambience enhancement. Had fun with it for quite a while.
At that time it was a delayed, attenuated and band passed (L-R and (R-L) mix.
Over time I concluded the centre was lacking. This brought me on several different paths to rectify that. The mid/side EQ, cross talk cancelation, Pano's phase trickery... All of them worked, all in a different way. But I started realizing the dullness and sober representation of the music could be fixed. Fix the cross talk in stereo and you'll be rewarded. Add a bit of ambience for overall envelopment and the result: pure bliss...
So the dull results in my opinion are not bad results, they just need some salt (mid/side EQ) and pepper (ambience). One to fix the stereo cross talk and the other to add that sense of liveliness. Done this way it turns each song into a performance. Adjustable to taste.
It's the many many ways of being able to combine all this that makes it harder to setup. However with all the moments of bliss and chills it's not an unpleasant task. Just time-consuming. The results however are far above average in my humble opinion.
Or build some excellent performing speakers with a very flat and equal FR.
After listening to it they are slightly disappointed. It's kinda dull compared to what they had or heard before. I've come across these kind of reports a lot.
My first encounter with FIR filtering was similar. I went from a wild and entertaining sound (IIR EQ) to a tamed version, as if someone shrunk my arrays. It wasn't long after that that I reported better luck with a bit of filtering turned on in JRiver. Most probably remember me rave about the surround field effect within JRivers filters.
It had similarities to some store bough processors that were doing mid/side processing.
The more damping panels that were added to my room, the more brave the results became. However with that mid/side surround field tweak it was very entertaining at the listening spot, imaging worked very well and precise. It wasn't quite right though, off axis the overall balance was gone. Central panned voices were soft in comparison to the surrounding music.
With placing the panel at the back of the listening position a sense of envelopment was gone. Replaced with a more strong and detailed imaging quality.
Quickly after introducing the ambience channels I realized I could now dial in that quality of ambience enhancement. Had fun with it for quite a while.
At that time it was a delayed, attenuated and band passed (L-R and (R-L) mix.
Over time I concluded the centre was lacking. This brought me on several different paths to rectify that. The mid/side EQ, cross talk cancelation, Pano's phase trickery... All of them worked, all in a different way. But I started realizing the dullness and sober representation of the music could be fixed. Fix the cross talk in stereo and you'll be rewarded. Add a bit of ambience for overall envelopment and the result: pure bliss...
So the dull results in my opinion are not bad results, they just need some salt (mid/side EQ) and pepper (ambience). One to fix the stereo cross talk and the other to add that sense of liveliness. Done this way it turns each song into a performance. Adjustable to taste.
It's the many many ways of being able to combine all this that makes it harder to setup. However with all the moments of bliss and chills it's not an unpleasant task. Just time-consuming. The results however are far above average in my humble opinion.
Last edited:
At the risk of being boring with my reports...
I've changed the ambient channels back to the old preference. Meaning I have the timing of the phantom part still at ~14/15 ms behind the mains and the (L-R) and (R-L) ambience timed at 18/19 ms behind the mains.
What this does is give a more neutral tone balance, maybe sounding somewhat less exiting for a couple of songs. Mostly the orchestral stuff and highly manipulated pop songs.
Overall it is more clear though, pure would likely be a good word for it. Plus the imaging shines.
This may very well be a learned preference by me over time. I have been listening and experimenting a lot over the past couple of years. It may have changed my way of listening.
It won't be the last experiment I'm sure.
For those that want to play with it, the level of phantom that I mix in is extremely low, about 6 dB below the (L-R) and (R-L) levels after first making sure the (L+R) sum is already 6 dB down. Put it higher up and the ambience will start to approach a stereo sound. As is, the L-R and R-L sounds are quite non directional in substance. Like an out of phase sound where it's hard to pin down where it's coming from. The more phantom is mixed in (which will always have some L and R in it's mix) the more you re-create a stereo signal again. It's only there to enhance the phantom center coming from straight forward. Especially it's tonality. You know, filling the stereo cross talk dips. It helps create room around the separate parts in the mix, like a vocalist. It also adds to the sense of depth or 3D.
Anyways, just wanted to mention this, your own preferences might be different.
A couple of songs later, just in time for the edit: definitely more sense of (a bigger) space. My original intend to get me out of my small room.
I've changed the ambient channels back to the old preference. Meaning I have the timing of the phantom part still at ~14/15 ms behind the mains and the (L-R) and (R-L) ambience timed at 18/19 ms behind the mains.
What this does is give a more neutral tone balance, maybe sounding somewhat less exiting for a couple of songs. Mostly the orchestral stuff and highly manipulated pop songs.
Overall it is more clear though, pure would likely be a good word for it. Plus the imaging shines.
This may very well be a learned preference by me over time. I have been listening and experimenting a lot over the past couple of years. It may have changed my way of listening.
It won't be the last experiment I'm sure.
For those that want to play with it, the level of phantom that I mix in is extremely low, about 6 dB below the (L-R) and (R-L) levels after first making sure the (L+R) sum is already 6 dB down. Put it higher up and the ambience will start to approach a stereo sound. As is, the L-R and R-L sounds are quite non directional in substance. Like an out of phase sound where it's hard to pin down where it's coming from. The more phantom is mixed in (which will always have some L and R in it's mix) the more you re-create a stereo signal again. It's only there to enhance the phantom center coming from straight forward. Especially it's tonality. You know, filling the stereo cross talk dips. It helps create room around the separate parts in the mix, like a vocalist. It also adds to the sense of depth or 3D.
Anyways, just wanted to mention this, your own preferences might be different
.A couple of songs later, just in time for the edit: definitely more sense of (a bigger) space. My original intend to get me out of my small room.
Last edited:
If, with all my experiments etc, it doesn't get any better than this, I still won't have any regrets at all. I still think it is awesome what we can get out of stereo if we really try.
I will try to finish the sub addition in the coming year. Just another toy to play with, really. As far as music goes it isn't needed at all. However it is too much fun to not try it for movies and any other experiment I can think of.
Over the last period I have concentrated on getting a more even ambience frequency response. This is where I might try averaging multiple measurements. For my mains it did not do much, probably because of the reduced level of early reflections I had already.
Where for the mains I concentrate on the early signal, arriving at the listening seat, the tactics for the ambient channels is different. There I only look at the overall balance, not using any frequency dependent windows. This is where an average of multiple measurements might add to the overall balance.
I do notice extreme stability of phantom sources. Mono sounds like pure mono. no side detractions. Most important; it sounds good anywhere in the room or even from outside that room.
Something I had experienced long ago at a previous place of work, from joining rooms it sounds like a performance is taking place right there. I've got that covered.
Balance is everything. Well, balance and clear sound.
I will try to finish the sub addition in the coming year. Just another toy to play with, really. As far as music goes it isn't needed at all. However it is too much fun to not try it for movies and any other experiment I can think of.
Over the last period I have concentrated on getting a more even ambience frequency response. This is where I might try averaging multiple measurements. For my mains it did not do much, probably because of the reduced level of early reflections I had already.
Where for the mains I concentrate on the early signal, arriving at the listening seat, the tactics for the ambient channels is different. There I only look at the overall balance, not using any frequency dependent windows. This is where an average of multiple measurements might add to the overall balance.
I do notice extreme stability of phantom sources. Mono sounds like pure mono. no side detractions. Most important; it sounds good anywhere in the room or even from outside that room.
Something I had experienced long ago at a previous place of work, from joining rooms it sounds like a performance is taking place right there. I've got that covered.
Balance is everything. Well, balance and clear sound.
Have you played with the JRiver room effect options in the DSP panel? They also seem to be aimed at making music more "ambient" if that makes sense. They seem to work better than similar options in AVR's I've used in the past but I'm not a huge fan. I'm sure what you're doing is much more tweak-able.
I do kinda like to dial in a little bit of virtual subwoofer though.
I do kinda like to dial in a little bit of virtual subwoofer though.
