As a sound experience, the movie "Rush" is recommended. The start of those engines just before a race is a tremendous experience. No need to see the movie, just skip to the best parts.
I do have a copy of that movie and I could load it via the network as a one off, so just for you I will try and have a listen when I can
Very interesting posts with arrays and omni´s.
I have always had a soft spot for the sound of omnis and dipols.
I have had Tympani , Audiostatic, Quad , DIY full range ribbons, DIY open baffles and have always loved the sound of Mbl´s speakers..
IMHO the array´s sounds more like these as opposed to traditional point source speakers.
All of this brings me to offer an idea here that I have had for some time now:
What about a hexagonal array with 6 x 25 TC9 ... Floor to ceiling omni line array ;-)
Would require some pretty big listening room, but I would imagine it to be really good sounding. No need for a subwoofer with 150 3,5" pr. stereo channel.
I have always had a soft spot for the sound of omnis and dipols.
I have had Tympani , Audiostatic, Quad , DIY full range ribbons, DIY open baffles and have always loved the sound of Mbl´s speakers..
IMHO the array´s sounds more like these as opposed to traditional point source speakers.
All of this brings me to offer an idea here that I have had for some time now:
What about a hexagonal array with 6 x 25 TC9 ... Floor to ceiling omni line array ;-)
Would require some pretty big listening room, but I would imagine it to be really good sounding. No need for a subwoofer with 150 3,5" pr. stereo channel.
It would be interesting to simulate something like that in ABEC or COMSOL to see what happens at the edges where the patterns of the hexagon join.
I don't like the extra rear radiation for all music so I doubt that an Omni would suit me either unless I had a really big room. Probably why those MBL's always seem to be in a big room away from the walls in promotional pictures.
All of my dipols and omnis have been playing in a room with at least 2 m to the rear walls. Otherwise the back wave is more of a problem than a benefit. But given such a distance to reflective surfaces, the kind of liveliness and airiness is unique for these type of speakers IMO.
Dipoles can work quite nicely in a long thin room in that you can give them space behind and the side nulls and toe in reduce side wall reflections. So far I have never had a space quite that large to allow 2m behind. I suspect I would like it to be damped rather than just further away. Maybe one day I will find out
For now I am happy with the performance of the arrays.
For now I am happy with the performance of the arrays.
Mid Side EQ
From a post in the Beyond the Ariel thread, I'm posting some details of the Mid Side EQ than I have been using. Wesayso has posted the specifics before and these are the settings he used.
I concur with wesayso that the EQ needs to be linear phase to sound "right". And the difference between linear and minimum phase EQ is not subtle in this application.
Mid Channel
100Hz Q 0.5 Gain 0.5
600Hz Q 0.5 Gain -3.0
1550Hz Q 1.5 Gain 2.0
3000Hz Q 3.5 Gain -1.0
3700Hz Q 2.7 Gain -2.0
5500Hz Q 4.0 Gain 1.0
7200Hz Q 3.0 Gain -1.5
High Shelf 2470Hz Q 0.5 Gain 0.8
Side Channel
Low Shelf 80Hz Q 0.70 Gain -0,5
This is what it looks like in the plugin
Wesayso boosts the sides by 0.5dB, I can't make up my mind but I have settled for cutting the sides by 1dB for now.
The more the sides are boosted the wider the stage becomes, I find that a bit weird and make it more mono by cutting the sides a little. That is the part that can be a bit track dependent as to the setting I prefer more.
There are a few plugins that can do this sort of EQ.
I am using FabFilter in MidSide mode and anyone that has that plugin can PM me to get a preset to save themselves the bother of inputing the EQ parameters.
IIEQPro can do it and Voxengo Ozone. Equilibre is free but only has 4 bands of Parametric EQ which isn't enough for all those listed above.
Voxengo MSED can do the encoding and decoding but would need to be used in a host program that can chain plugins.
Metaplugin can be used in Jriver to allow multiple plugins to be routed any which way but is not free but does include a mid side plugin.
If there is any interest I can try and make an impulse in Jriver that could be used in a convolution plugin or try and make a comparison track for people to test for themselves if they don't have the correct plugins.
From a post in the Beyond the Ariel thread, I'm posting some details of the Mid Side EQ than I have been using. Wesayso has posted the specifics before and these are the settings he used.
I concur with wesayso that the EQ needs to be linear phase to sound "right". And the difference between linear and minimum phase EQ is not subtle in this application.
Mid Channel
100Hz Q 0.5 Gain 0.5
600Hz Q 0.5 Gain -3.0
1550Hz Q 1.5 Gain 2.0
3000Hz Q 3.5 Gain -1.0
3700Hz Q 2.7 Gain -2.0
5500Hz Q 4.0 Gain 1.0
7200Hz Q 3.0 Gain -1.5
High Shelf 2470Hz Q 0.5 Gain 0.8
Side Channel
Low Shelf 80Hz Q 0.70 Gain -0,5
This is what it looks like in the plugin
Wesayso boosts the sides by 0.5dB, I can't make up my mind but I have settled for cutting the sides by 1dB for now.
The more the sides are boosted the wider the stage becomes, I find that a bit weird and make it more mono by cutting the sides a little. That is the part that can be a bit track dependent as to the setting I prefer more.
There are a few plugins that can do this sort of EQ.
I am using FabFilter in MidSide mode and anyone that has that plugin can PM me to get a preset to save themselves the bother of inputing the EQ parameters.
IIEQPro can do it and Voxengo Ozone. Equilibre is free but only has 4 bands of Parametric EQ which isn't enough for all those listed above.
Voxengo MSED can do the encoding and decoding but would need to be used in a host program that can chain plugins.
Metaplugin can be used in Jriver to allow multiple plugins to be routed any which way but is not free but does include a mid side plugin.
If there is any interest I can try and make an impulse in Jriver that could be used in a convolution plugin or try and make a comparison track for people to test for themselves if they don't have the correct plugins.
Attachments
It makes sense to me that you don't prefer to boost the sides. Before I setup the damping panel beside my left array I had a widening effect of the stage at that side. The reflections pulled the sound there. This increased if you boost the sides in mid/side.
Once I took care of the side wall reflection I could not notice that same extreme widening effect anymore. Now it's more of a balancing act for me.
One other thing is that I noticed way more after removing the reflection were the stage changes within each track. Some are wide, some are narrow.
When I still had the left wall reflection, each track (still) got skewed on that side. It's a sauce that treats every recording the same. I struggled to get depth because the widening almost seemed to just make it a big horizontally plane. Fun on some tracks, not as great on all.
I feel no need to adjust it anymore. Which had been different before the damping panels. In all fairness, that was before real mid/side EQ, at that time I only used mid/side level within JRiver.
One clear thing mid/side EQ does for me is make the center more intelligible. I can hear the words better. Not as obvious on all recordings, most do fine in that regard, but every now and then you come across a more difficult to follow line.
Even one day wonder hits can be good for that. Pitbull's Fireball has a 'normal' and (very) clear to understand center voice. Partway trough that song a second voice comes in, just a hint beside the center (the voice of John Ryan comes in) that was less clear to follow. It also has more reverb added. Mid/side EQ made that more clearly pronounced for me, much like when heard over headphones.
I was born in a flame
Mama said that everyone would know my name
I'm the best (that's right) you've ever had (that's right)
If you think I'm burning out, I never am
I can supply more examples, actually I did on my thread.
Disclaimer: The supplied example is in no way related to my musical taste
Yet another warning: the overall balance might change with this EQ active, depending on how it was setup. If tonal balance was setup to provide good balance for the phantom centre (good chance of that being the case under normal circumstances) some re-EQ-ing of tonal balance might be in order. These settings above are a starting point I had to extract from a mixed EQ. Meaning I had an overall pleasing tonal curve and adjusted it separate for tonal balance in phantom material and tonal balance in side material. Every room and/or setup might need some tweaks.
Tracks that feature the same person in (panned to the side) background vocal as lead can help to tune it.
I do hope this helps because writing this post stole a half an hour listening session I had planned
.
Last edited:
Not a horizontal plane you fool
. Those #$%$ last minute edits... a plane parallel with (and possibly trough) the arrays. I suppose it should be called a vertical plane as seen from the normal seating area.
Last edited:
It is hard to describe exactly what the Mid Side EQ does, clarity is perhaps a good description, once you've heard it on then turned off you wonder what the hell you were listening to before. At least for me and I am in a very reflective room so you do not need a treated space to hear it.
I haven't felt the need to tweak it based on target curve it works the same for me on all my recent ones. They are broadly similar though so it might not be the same for everyone. I also didn't feel the need to tweak my target curve for quite a while, then I did and now I wouldn't go back so I reserve the right to change my mind
I'm only really just coming around to listening for imaging rather than just tonal balance so depth is not really something I have been concerned with. Having said that there is an imaging test track from one of the Chesky CD's and the movement of sound forwards and back and left to right is quite amazing.
I noticed a much more solid centre once I got the left right balance right, 0.3dB was all it took to pull to either side.
It would be great if more people could try it and see if it works well across the board.
I haven't felt the need to tweak it based on target curve it works the same for me on all my recent ones. They are broadly similar though so it might not be the same for everyone. I also didn't feel the need to tweak my target curve for quite a while, then I did and now I wouldn't go back so I reserve the right to change my mind
I'm only really just coming around to listening for imaging rather than just tonal balance so depth is not really something I have been concerned with. Having said that there is an imaging test track from one of the Chesky CD's and the movement of sound forwards and back and left to right is quite amazing.
I noticed a much more solid centre once I got the left right balance right, 0.3dB was all it took to pull to either side.
It would be great if more people could try it and see if it works well across the board.
It's OK you can say you like Pitbull, you can quote the words so you didn't listen to it just onceDisclaimer: The supplied example is in no way related to my musical taste
I don't mind a bit of Birthday from Katy Perry, the thought of Katy "bringing out the big balloons" makes me chuckle every time I hear it.
Yes, I do think it will work for OB speakers as well. How many people seem to like the dip most commonly known as "the BBC dip". A completely wrong name for a slight dip that relates pretty good to these settings. However, a dip like that would affect the sides as well. The above settings are a package deal to work as advertised.
For me it clears up a "problem" in the center channel as well as giving the side material more body or realism.
This EQ scheme is based on my personal preference, following much of the theory found in Pano's Fixing the Stereo Phantom Center
I was already using mid/side EQ prior to that thread, I was able to fine tune it to my liking based on the many experiments I did. Playing with theoretical models helped to steer it in the right direction.
I tried 3 different things to solve the same problem. The mid/side EQ solved most of it without the draw backs the other 2 methods had for me. The other methods being:
- Pano's proposed shuffler (I tried many variants of it, while it did work as advertised it had draw-backs on seating positions next to the sweet spot).
- Cross talk compensation with software, like it is found and described at Ambiophonics.org as well as the work of Prof. Edgar Choueiri, that originated from that same Ambiophonics group and grew into the Bacch 3D sound.
I only had access to some parts of the older work from Prof. Edgar Choueiri. I experimented a lot with my own variations around that theme. I linked a paper on the subject (by Prof. Edgar Choueiri) for those that would like to know more (many more can be found at the Princeton.edu site). While this method also had promise, I never found settings I could live with for prolonged listening sessions. I bet the genuine Bacch filters work way better though. I would not know as I cannot afford to try them.
The ambient project I did was changed after the above tests to help make the mid/side EQ solution perform even stronger/better.
For me it clears up a "problem" in the center channel as well as giving the side material more body or realism.
This EQ scheme is based on my personal preference, following much of the theory found in Pano's Fixing the Stereo Phantom Center
I was already using mid/side EQ prior to that thread, I was able to fine tune it to my liking based on the many experiments I did. Playing with theoretical models helped to steer it in the right direction.
I tried 3 different things to solve the same problem. The mid/side EQ solved most of it without the draw backs the other 2 methods had for me. The other methods being:
- Pano's proposed shuffler (I tried many variants of it, while it did work as advertised it had draw-backs on seating positions next to the sweet spot).
- Cross talk compensation with software, like it is found and described at Ambiophonics.org as well as the work of Prof. Edgar Choueiri, that originated from that same Ambiophonics group and grew into the Bacch 3D sound.
I only had access to some parts of the older work from Prof. Edgar Choueiri. I experimented a lot with my own variations around that theme. I linked a paper on the subject (by Prof. Edgar Choueiri) for those that would like to know more (many more can be found at the Princeton.edu site). While this method also had promise, I never found settings I could live with for prolonged listening sessions. I bet the genuine Bacch filters work way better though. I would not know as I cannot afford to try them.
The ambient project I did was changed after the above tests to help make the mid/side EQ solution perform even stronger/better.
Last edited:
Mid Side EQ
Thanks fluid and wesayso for numbers those linear phase EQ, whenever down the road i get my stereo signal feeded mono speaker exchanged with some real stereo speaker setup will try out those guiding, especial after seing fluids description that tell "after turned off you wonder what the hell you were listening to before" well that sounds very interesting and good to hear it also works in non treated room, but can it be said also as good guidance for perceval and other that will try it out that its also important that the two speakers are either tweaked/documented to perform nearly same response or if response is not documented then at least make sure speakers are placed in a symmetrical looking environment with listening position in center spot.
By the way about music if Roger Waters live concert is a interest for fluid i saw tickets is set for sale for planned January/February tour in Australia and New Zealand (Roger Waters - Us + Them tour.)
Thanks fluid and wesayso for numbers those linear phase EQ, whenever down the road i get my stereo signal feeded mono speaker exchanged with some real stereo speaker setup will try out those guiding, especial after seing fluids description that tell "after turned off you wonder what the hell you were listening to before" well that sounds very interesting
and good to hear it also works in non treated room, but can it be said also as good guidance for perceval and other that will try it out that its also important that the two speakers are either tweaked/documented to perform nearly same response or if response is not documented then at least make sure speakers are placed in a symmetrical looking environment with listening position in center spot.By the way about music if Roger Waters live concert is a interest for fluid i saw tickets is set for sale for planned January/February tour in Australia and New Zealand (Roger Waters - Us + Them tour.)
Byrtt thanks for thinking of me but I doubt I will get the chance.
I would say if you have the time still try it on the mono speaker, the effect would likely be much more subtle but interesting to see if you hear it that way. Insert it in the stereo path before summing to mono.
If you do try changing the mid side relative level to see if it changes anything positively any more than 2dB is too much for me, half a dB to 1dB seems the best range.
As a test I have tried it with my Macbook built in speakers and I can still hear a difference. It is much more subtle than on the arrays but still there. Much less of a "wow that is obviously better" though. The effect is greatest on vocals in that it gives more space around them and they sound a bit sweeter.
It is very possible that having closely matched left and right speakers in both frequency and level increase the apparent effect.
Hopefully more people can try it out for themselves on different systems and see if it offers improvement for them. Feedback on that would be useful.
I will try it on my desktop mini monitors as an in between the laptop and arrays when I get the chance.
I hope the effect isn't restricted to heavily processed systems or my description might well over promise and under deliver!
I would say if you have the time still try it on the mono speaker, the effect would likely be much more subtle but interesting to see if you hear it that way. Insert it in the stereo path before summing to mono.
If you do try changing the mid side relative level to see if it changes anything positively any more than 2dB is too much for me, half a dB to 1dB seems the best range.
As a test I have tried it with my Macbook built in speakers and I can still hear a difference. It is much more subtle than on the arrays but still there. Much less of a "wow that is obviously better" though. The effect is greatest on vocals in that it gives more space around them and they sound a bit sweeter.
It is very possible that having closely matched left and right speakers in both frequency and level increase the apparent effect.
Hopefully more people can try it out for themselves on different systems and see if it offers improvement for them. Feedback on that would be useful.
I will try it on my desktop mini monitors as an in between the laptop and arrays when I get the chance.
I hope the effect isn't restricted to heavily processed systems or my description might well over promise and under deliver!
I used to have a boombox with a "simulated surround"setting on it. Pressing the button made it seem as though the speakers were 4-6 feet apart instead of 2 feet. I presume it subtracted some portion of the left channel from the right and visa versa which slightly mutes the monaural portion while the slight negative image from the one speaker pushes a "phantom" sound stage to the side of the other speaker. The effect was a bit too much if I separated the speakers to corners of the room, and downright bizzare with headphones.
I am curious what methods are being used to push stereo sound to three speakers. Is the center just mono mix? Pro Logic decoding has a disjointed effect on sources not encoded for it. Line array or point source, it seems a bunch of people are building pseudo surround systems with three front speakers minus the surrounds. I would imagine the reciever would need to output the surround content to the three mains somehow or a portion of the soundtrack would be lost. Also splitting musical stereo into five channels (except Pro Logic encoded content) is hit or miss. One option would be mono mix in center, unmolested sound to the left and right, and "simulated" surround to the surrounds by subtracting 50% of the opposing signal.
My latest Parts Express catalogue highlighted an awesome project build with an extra long soundbar with three discrete MTM channels (with the tweets positioned above the woofers forimg triangles) But that is likely a topic for another thread.
I am curious what methods are being used to push stereo sound to three speakers. Is the center just mono mix? Pro Logic decoding has a disjointed effect on sources not encoded for it. Line array or point source, it seems a bunch of people are building pseudo surround systems with three front speakers minus the surrounds. I would imagine the reciever would need to output the surround content to the three mains somehow or a portion of the soundtrack would be lost. Also splitting musical stereo into five channels (except Pro Logic encoded content) is hit or miss. One option would be mono mix in center, unmolested sound to the left and right, and "simulated" surround to the surrounds by subtracting 50% of the opposing signal.
My latest Parts Express catalogue highlighted an awesome project build with an extra long soundbar with three discrete MTM channels (with the tweets positioned above the woofers forimg triangles) But that is likely a topic for another thread.
Last edited:
stardust I don't understand what any of that has to do with Mid Side Eq. It is not intended as a pseudo surround effect although you can change the apparent width somewhat by changing the relative Mid Side Levels but beyond a small adjustment it begins to sound like a gimmic.
It is an EQ based on HRTF ideas and phantom centre images.
I haven't seen the Parts Express project you are referring to but anything designed to fit like a soundbar is almost always a severe compromise from the start. Definitely for another thread.
It is an EQ based on HRTF ideas and phantom centre images.
I haven't seen the Parts Express project you are referring to but anything designed to fit like a soundbar is almost always a severe compromise from the start. Definitely for another thread.