I don't know if there is a simple answer but the perception of sound and particularly room cues are quite different between headphones and speakers and then between different types of speakers.
For me where the room sound on the recording is quiet I find it easier to hear that on headphones as it doesn't get drowned out. When it is more obvious the balance shifts.
I find the extra energy in the room produced from a dipole to work like an enhancement with different sounds and how they are perceived. That can work to magnify things in the recording that can be difficult to hear otherwise. Sometimes that works nicely like perceval is describing. Sometimes it can be less great, like when it magnified the clipping distortion in a track that I had not noticed before. That was only audible with a full range dipole with a rear facing tweeter. For me it's only positive on a small part of my music listening and a detriment to the rest. Shame as it can make some tracks shiver worthy.
Perhaps the room sound works a bit like dither in that even though there is more noise it is easier to hear through it somehow to whats beneath.
As Byrtt posted before Mid Side is a sum and difference process, Mid being the sum (L+R) Side being the difference (L-R).
Whatever is common to both is changed by the Mid EQ and whatever is different is the sides.
I have sent you a PM with the what I sent to Byrtt to make sure we are all using the same settings.
I think it should be possible to generate an impulse for convolution and that could be used by adding a VST convolver to Jriver so that it can do two convolutions in the chain if the native is used for other purposes.
It is also possible to use REW to convolve two filters together but I have not tested that with Mid Side EQ.
The downside to that is that the relative levels of the Mid and Side channels is fixed by that process and from my experience being able to change that is important to tune it to your own preference depending on your room.
Let us know how you go with it, also change the setting from linear to minimum phase and see if you can hear the difference
You're welcome. I enjoy trying new stuff so thanks to you all.
About the room recording perception, I have this working theory,but then again, it might be completely wrong, I'm not sure.
3D space needs stereo input, but also bleed from one side to the other. I remember Wesayso posting a picture about how the two ears hear stuff meant for the other ear/side. Then, our brain process this and makes this 3D image of the sound in our mind.
A little like our eyes, both see the same picture, just a little offset, and that's how we perceive 3D space around us. If one eye went to only one side of the brain, and the other eye to the other side, with no bleed from the other, our perception would be totally different.
When listening with headphones, the separation is complete from R to L, no bleed to help your brain with spatial cues. So, the room is lost.
That's my working theory, but again, this might be a very childish way to try to explain it!
Thanks fluid sharing those IR from your DACs its interesting visuals, can also understand after all the work you like get over more tweaking right now and instead enjoy listening current performance.
Have a little tweak to share for Jriver if some didn't know about it, when we load a VST in a DAW we used to it works multiple times on as many channels we want to use it, in Jriver its possible chain same VST multiple times by rename dll-file multiple times as long as CPU power allows load, in DSP Studio/Manage Plug-ins point to all the renamed dll-files and they show up as in below example where its loaded five times in a row shown with yellow marker : )
Have a little tweak to share for Jriver if some didn't know about it, when we load a VST in a DAW we used to it works multiple times on as many channels we want to use it, in Jriver its possible chain same VST multiple times by rename dll-file multiple times as long as CPU power allows load, in DSP Studio/Manage Plug-ins point to all the renamed dll-files and they show up as in below example where its loaded five times in a row shown with yellow marker : )
Attachments
fluid, thanks! I will try it out and report back.
perceval, have you seen this?
smyth Realiser A16
It is possible to recreate the 3d illusion even with headphones. The ears don't know that a left loudspeaker is sending sounds to the right ear and vice-versa. As long as you provide the same sounds via headphones, it can be fooled, and fooled quite well, as it turns out. For example, in the right ear, you can send the same sound as the left ear, but with a slide delay and modified FR and level to represent head shading, as you would get from a left loudspeaker.
OBs produce lots of reflections and I think for this processing to work, you need fewer reflections. The center phantom image dip also is not so severe in cases where the room is relatively reflective. Toole notes this on his discussion of the phantom image dip.
perceval, have you seen this?
smyth Realiser A16
It is possible to recreate the 3d illusion even with headphones. The ears don't know that a left loudspeaker is sending sounds to the right ear and vice-versa. As long as you provide the same sounds via headphones, it can be fooled, and fooled quite well, as it turns out. For example, in the right ear, you can send the same sound as the left ear, but with a slide delay and modified FR and level to represent head shading, as you would get from a left loudspeaker.
OBs produce lots of reflections and I think for this processing to work, you need fewer reflections. The center phantom image dip also is not so severe in cases where the room is relatively reflective. Toole notes this on his discussion of the phantom image dip.
Stereo is a good trick but it doesn't take that much for the illusion to be heard for what it is, headphones are a good way to undo it.
There is more to it that just the channel bleed though. That is the principle of using a crossfeed plugin with headphones but it only goes so far.
There are lots of theories, David Moulton has one where the speaker acts as the early reflection for a phantom source that the brain interprets.
Multi channel sound and ambisonics in some ways have a much better chance at presenting a 3D stage but you can get good results from just two speakers in stereo.
As to the amount of room sound heard it is also difficult to know what is the "right" amount. Which is more accurate in that sense. Without having heard the original it is hard to say but if anyone prefers the sound they get from a particular speaker then does it really matter from the point of view of enjoyment?
Byrtt that is a good tip and would probably allow the free Plugin Equilibre to work with the full mid side EQ as you could chain two plugins together to get the required number of bands within Jriver.
I could use it to get rid of metaplugin from my chain as I only had it in there due to Fabfilter having a limited number of bands for my pre EQ.
There is more to it that just the channel bleed though. That is the principle of using a crossfeed plugin with headphones but it only goes so far.
There are lots of theories, David Moulton has one where the speaker acts as the early reflection for a phantom source that the brain interprets.
Multi channel sound and ambisonics in some ways have a much better chance at presenting a 3D stage but you can get good results from just two speakers in stereo.
As to the amount of room sound heard it is also difficult to know what is the "right" amount. Which is more accurate in that sense. Without having heard the original it is hard to say but if anyone prefers the sound they get from a particular speaker then does it really matter from the point of view of enjoyment?
Byrtt that is a good tip and would probably allow the free Plugin Equilibre to work with the full mid side EQ as you could chain two plugins together to get the required number of bands within Jriver.
I could use it to get rid of metaplugin from my chain as I only had it in there due to Fabfilter having a limited number of bands for my pre EQ.
Expensive toy, that Smyth thing!
Yes, there are a number of plugins out there used to "simulate" different rooms or speakers when using headphones. They say they expand the sound to feel like you are listening to speakers, not headphones. I've tried a few demos. They offer rooms, studios or even car environment, used to test tracks when mixing. It works by sending some of the L material to the R ear (and vice-versa), adjusting volume and EQ a bit. I've always felt it was a "processed" approximation of the real thing.
I have no experience with the Realiser A16 though.
Also, I don't get to use headphones that often. I live in a place where it is over 30C and 95% humidity most of the year. It makes for very sweaty ears and uncomfortable when wearing ear-covering headphones. I also have in-ear monitors, but I get tired of the sound quickly and go back to real speakers quickly.
That could be it. I also have a somewhat reflective room, having granite floor and concrete walls. Add in furniture, a huge sofa and book shelves, it helps a bit, but still quite reflective.
The OB reflections seem to pick up the reflections from the recording room and shoots them back around me. I'm quite enamoured with the sound and space they offer, have felt that typical enclosed speaker boxes "project" the sound towards my ears, and OB surrounds me in sound, closer to an actual performance and space.
Yes, there are a number of plugins out there used to "simulate" different rooms or speakers when using headphones. They say they expand the sound to feel like you are listening to speakers, not headphones. I've tried a few demos. They offer rooms, studios or even car environment, used to test tracks when mixing. It works by sending some of the L material to the R ear (and vice-versa), adjusting volume and EQ a bit. I've always felt it was a "processed" approximation of the real thing.
I have no experience with the Realiser A16 though.
Also, I don't get to use headphones that often. I live in a place where it is over 30C and 95% humidity most of the year. It makes for very sweaty ears and uncomfortable when wearing ear-covering headphones. I also have in-ear monitors, but I get tired of the sound quickly and go back to real speakers quickly.
That could be it. I also have a somewhat reflective room, having granite floor and concrete walls. Add in furniture, a huge sofa and book shelves, it helps a bit, but still quite reflective.
The OB reflections seem to pick up the reflections from the recording room and shoots them back around me. I'm quite enamoured with the sound and space they offer, have felt that typical enclosed speaker boxes "project" the sound towards my ears, and OB surrounds me in sound, closer to an actual performance and space.
No problem will be interested to see what you think.
My room is pretty reflective so this is not just related to the darkening of the centre image otherwise it would have more limited effect for me.
I would agree that the extra room energy from dipoles could well cause this sort of processing to be less effective or remove something that was enjoyed.
I also think that the sort of room curve employed is important too, and what sounds right for different types of systems isn't always the same. I don't like quite as much roll off with my dipoles as I do with the arrays.
It would be good to get a broader sample of people with different systems to try and that might provide a better understanding of who it works for and why.
I don't regard my solution as being HiFi, it's more MyFi
.Basically, I aim to please myself. No matter what anyone thinks of it.
A room with reflections does not need to be a bad experience. In fact it can be very pleasing. I experienced the difference in perception when I removed/absorbed some of those reflections and what it did for certain material. That's why I added the ambient speakers to see if I could get that feeling back.
A room low on reflections will make the effects of stereo cross talk a lot more obvious. Actually, it becomes more 3D like when we are able to remove some of that cross talk. Among others, Prof. Edgar Choueiri's work demonstrates that.
Somewhere on my hard-drive I still have a demo file from a radio show he once did. Very entertaining and interesting demo which made me do a lot of experiments (at that time with the stereo setup in my car).
Most of those experiments were re-run within my home environment. This finally resulted in the mid/side EQ tweaks (and a few more tweaks much like that in my ambient channels).
Do room reflections start to disappear when the SPL's get louder on your guys' TC9 arrays?
I'm not sure what you mean by that, but the effect of the reflections only gets worse for me the more energy you put into them. You can't really change the ratio of direct to reflected sound by spl alone though if that was your thought.
I do not like the sound of "any" speaker in my current room when the volume is turned up to what sounds loud to me.
Part of that could just be me, but I also put a good deal of it down to this room, or style of room. It is very reflective with minimal absorption or diffusion from anything, beyond a certain level I don't like it.
I suspect for me controlling the first reflections would be beneficial in this regard only time will tell though if I ever get to test it out.
I do not like the sound of "any" speaker in my current room when the volume is turned up to what sounds loud to me.
Part of that could just be me, but I also put a good deal of it down to this room, or style of room. It is very reflective with minimal absorption or diffusion from anything, beyond a certain level I don't like it.
I suspect for me controlling the first reflections would be beneficial in this regard only time will tell though if I ever get to test it out.
They won't disappear when SPL goes up. You won't hear it as being separate.
The very early reflections within the first ~6 ms will influence the staging/imaging the most. But it will be a "similar sauce" on every song played.
Later ones than ~6 ms can really add to that "music all around me" feeling. When I absorbed those I did start missing that part. It was very entertaining, especially with big orchestra's like those found in movie soundtracks.
The very early reflections within the first ~6 ms will influence the staging/imaging the most. But it will be a "similar sauce" on every song played.
Later ones than ~6 ms can really add to that "music all around me" feeling. When I absorbed those I did start missing that part. It was very entertaining, especially with big orchestra's like those found in movie soundtracks.
With my system in the room I listen in the center reflections make a huge difference. I found this out when I put a flat screen TV in between the speakers. I'm thinking the biggest improvement I can make to my system now is putting a panel with sound absorbent material in the center section. Test the center for "first reflections" not just the outer walls. You may be surprised what a passive change can make!
I had one person telling me there was no sound that went to the back wall. Putting my head in that area told me this was wrong. Trust your ears.
Grant.
I have a fairly large flat screen in between the speakers it is not going anywhere but I understand the point you are making and it is valid.
The directivity of the speakers is what determines where the sound goes and at what level. Most speakers are omnidirectional below a certain point so sound radiates in all directions as frequency goes up directivity often goes up too meaning that there is less sound emitted to the sides and rear. Also remember that you can hear reflected sound behind the speaker from other areas of the room but the balance should be different.
Ears are great and the final arbiter but an understanding of the working of the speaker and some good measurements will be quite useful too. Clearly the person who told you there would be no sound to the rear is not correct but there will be less in most designs above the point where the speaker becomes omnidirectional.
The array has the horizontal directivity of a single driver and it is pretty even out to about 30 degrees either side, after that the high frequencies roll off. The speakers are in front of the TV and toed in so that a good portion of the frequency range will not radiate at the TV with much intensity. It would no doubt be better without it but not a practical situation, this is no listening room I am in and not meant to be. My aim is to get as good as I can with what I have for now.
In that regard the dipole speakers were useful in that the lateral nulls could be placed at the TV and reduced side wall reflections too. The problem was the distance to the front wall being too close.
The directivity of the speakers is what determines where the sound goes and at what level. Most speakers are omnidirectional below a certain point so sound radiates in all directions as frequency goes up directivity often goes up too meaning that there is less sound emitted to the sides and rear. Also remember that you can hear reflected sound behind the speaker from other areas of the room but the balance should be different.
Ears are great and the final arbiter but an understanding of the working of the speaker and some good measurements will be quite useful too. Clearly the person who told you there would be no sound to the rear is not correct but there will be less in most designs above the point where the speaker becomes omnidirectional.
The array has the horizontal directivity of a single driver and it is pretty even out to about 30 degrees either side, after that the high frequencies roll off. The speakers are in front of the TV and toed in so that a good portion of the frequency range will not radiate at the TV with much intensity. It would no doubt be better without it but not a practical situation, this is no listening room I am in and not meant to be. My aim is to get as good as I can with what I have for now.
In that regard the dipole speakers were useful in that the lateral nulls could be placed at the TV and reduced side wall reflections too. The problem was the distance to the front wall being too close.
Last edited:
Real instruments in real space
Hi Guys.
Sorry for a little OT piece, but I wanted to share this with you all.
It puzzles me a little that most of the music examples I have seen mentioned in all these arry threats, are studio music (or live music but with electric instruments), where you sort of have to guess, how it is supposed to sound .
I wanted to present an example where all the sounds are made of acoustic instruments and at the same time sayes something about the resolution and tonality in the fantom channel.
This is a Mozart piece for orchestra and 3 pianos.
The 3 pianos are exactly the same, but nevertheless sounds a little different as it is 3 different musicians playing them. As I hear it the leftmost piano is played so it sounds lighter than the two others. I have a harder time to hear the difference between the center and rightmost piano (except for placement).
I was thinking some of you might have a good time listening to this...
Mozart- Concerto for 3 Pianos and Orchestra _No.7_ in F_ K.242 -Lodron- - arr. M.wav
Hi Guys.
Sorry for a little OT piece, but I wanted to share this with you all.
It puzzles me a little that most of the music examples I have seen mentioned in all these arry threats, are studio music (or live music but with electric instruments), where you sort of have to guess, how it is supposed to sound .
I wanted to present an example where all the sounds are made of acoustic instruments and at the same time sayes something about the resolution and tonality in the fantom channel.
This is a Mozart piece for orchestra and 3 pianos.
The 3 pianos are exactly the same, but nevertheless sounds a little different as it is 3 different musicians playing them. As I hear it the leftmost piano is played so it sounds lighter than the two others. I have a harder time to hear the difference between the center and rightmost piano (except for placement).
I was thinking some of you might have a good time listening to this...
Mozart- Concerto for 3 Pianos and Orchestra _No.7_ in F_ K.242 -Lodron- - arr. M.wav
I'll have a listen when I get a chance, not something I enjoy listening to myself.
I don't know that there is any less guesswork involved in knowing if it sounds "right" due to it being based on acoustic instruments.
I know there are lots of people who pride themselves on "knowing" what it should sound like as they attend regular live concerts, can't say that convinces me much. Having played lots of instruments myself from a young age I like to think I know what they sound like but there are so many variables involved in the recording process it can be difficult to know what is right.
I am aiming much more for enjoyment and it being right for me these days as I am not mixing or mastering music just listening to it
I don't know that there is any less guesswork involved in knowing if it sounds "right" due to it being based on acoustic instruments.
I know there are lots of people who pride themselves on "knowing" what it should sound like as they attend regular live concerts, can't say that convinces me much. Having played lots of instruments myself from a young age I like to think I know what they sound like but there are so many variables involved in the recording process it can be difficult to know what is right.
I am aiming much more for enjoyment and it being right for me these days as I am not mixing or mastering music just listening to it
I'll have a listen when I get a chance, not something I enjoy listening to myself.
I don't know that there is any less guesswork involved in knowing if it sounds "right" due to it being based on acoustic instruments.
I know there are lots of people who pride themselves on "knowing" what it should sound like as they attend regular live concerts, can't say that convinces me much. Having played lots of instruments myself from a young age I like to think I know what they sound like but there are so many variables involved in the recording process it can be difficult to know what is right.
I am aiming much more for enjoyment and it being right for me these days as I am not mixing or mastering music just listening to it
Oh I think I am just saying that the sound of a distorted electric guitar could sound just right (and enjoyable indeed ) in a system with high levels of distortion, whereas a piano would not sound good. So if you sometimes listen to acoustical instruments, you tend to prefer a system with low distortion (any kind of distortion). I listen to a lot of music NOT made of live acoustic instruments and enjoy it very much, but it is harder to tell if the sounds I dislike is purposely made by the artists or is a product of my stereo...
I don't think distortion is a major factor at least from my perspective. I listen to lots of music of all different genres and much of it is based on acoustic instruments, but my preference in audiophile acoustic recordings goes to Jazz and not Orchestral pieces.
Heavy Rock can sound wrong on clean undistorted speakers that sound great with Orchestra's and Jazz, part of my reason to try the arrays.
Can't say I have a valid opinion of my own on what level of distortion is needed for it to be unnoticed, low order harmonic distortion is much less obnoxious than high order or intermodulation though.
All things being equal lower in all would seem better
A pleasing frequency balance and a speaker that works with the room rather than against it gets my vote.
Heavy Rock can sound wrong on clean undistorted speakers that sound great with Orchestra's and Jazz, part of my reason to try the arrays.
Can't say I have a valid opinion of my own on what level of distortion is needed for it to be unnoticed, low order harmonic distortion is much less obnoxious than high order or intermodulation though.
All things being equal lower in all would seem better
A pleasing frequency balance and a speaker that works with the room rather than against it gets my vote.