Hello graaf, I have read maybe all your posts about Stereolith and other non-standard speakers.
From the information I can find, it is not clear, if the stereolith has two internal chambers (one for each woofer) or one in common. Both could make sense in a way...
Anyway, I am in the process of searching for unusual bookshelf loudspeakers above my workdesk and for a second main system - my room is quite small (3,5x4,3 m) and that rules out my favorite horns. I am kind of tired from small 2 way bass reflex mini monitors - maybe those are the last resort (with quality drivers).
From the information I can find, it is not clear, if the stereolith has two internal chambers (one for each woofer) or one in common. Both could make sense in a way...
Anyway, I am in the process of searching for unusual bookshelf loudspeakers above my workdesk and for a second main system - my room is quite small (3,5x4,3 m) and that rules out my favorite horns. I am kind of tired from small 2 way bass reflex mini monitors - maybe those are the last resort (with quality drivers).
pelanj said:
hello!
nice to know that someone is reading
pelanj said:
AFAIK nothing in Stereolith-principle theory suggests that common chamber for both channel's woofers is something on which the principle's operation depends
also nothing about common chamber in Schupbach patent despcritions allthough I haven't read patent despcritions for His latest/current line of loudspeakers - those with mono tweeters
I have heard rumours that both woofers in fact work in common volume but I cannof confirmed that.
BUT I never used original Stereolith.
I only first tried to position conventional speakers back-to-back and then I built my own "stereolits", in fact quite independently, not knowing at the time of Schupbach's earlier work.
My aim was to build an ambiopole that could work without physical barrier or electronic crosstalk cancellation.
quite a long time ago I tried to get anyone at AudioAsylum interested in Stereolith and one guy followed my recommendations:
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=general&n=357231
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/35/357386.html
in His smaller room "the effects were excellent"
so perhaps worth trying
best!
graaf
Hello graaf!
I searched patent databases and only got patents for strange multi-driver arrays. Do you know wheter the actual Stereolith speakers use some L-R component?
I did the following arrangement of my Carlsson prototypes and found that good stereophonic recordings in fact produce a good image of the instruments and vocalists, but only the Carlsson arrangement gives you a sense for the room. One advantage however is that one can listened to synthetic reverb productions, too.
Regards,
Oliver
I searched patent databases and only got patents for strange multi-driver arrays. Do you know wheter the actual Stereolith speakers use some L-R component?
I did the following arrangement of my Carlsson prototypes and found that good stereophonic recordings in fact produce a good image of the instruments and vocalists, but only the Carlsson arrangement gives you a sense for the room. One advantage however is that one can listened to synthetic reverb productions, too.
Regards,
Oliver
Attachments
Hello Oliver,
what a nice and unorthodox system you have Could you please describe it briefly and maybe add some pictures and listening impressions?
Out of many other, I like Carlsson designs very much, especially OA-52. I have a friend in Denmark who promised to get a pair of used Carlssons when he can get them for a good price.
what a nice and unorthodox system you have
Could you please describe it briefly and maybe add some pictures and listening impressions? Out of many other, I like Carlsson designs very much, especially OA-52. I have a friend in Denmark who promised to get a pair of used Carlssons when he can get them for a good price.
el`Ol said:
those multidriver arrays are earlier versions of Stereolith
here is an example: http://cgi.ebay.pl/Stereolith-exklu...Z020QQcategoryZ113414QQtcZphotoQQcmdZViewItem
to my knowledge Stereolith never used "L-R"
from it's begining this was separate approach different from any kind of "matrix stereo" L+R/L-R etc.
models from their current line use "mono" tweeter, "L+R" as I understand it
because according to Mr Schupbach our spatial hearing relies effectively on cues at frequencies <1.5 kHz, espacially around 1 kHz
el`Ol said:
WOW! el`Ol, You are great!
el`Ol said:
by "a sense for the room" You mean "a sense of the recording venue" or "a sense of the listening room"?
by "Carlsson arrangement" You mean "on the floor next to wall"? or "on the floor in corners"?
what is the distance between speakers in "Carlsson arrangement"?
el`Ol said:
yes, multitrack pan potted stereo works with stereolit IF the reverb is there, may be artificial, no problem
when there is a lot of reverb effects can be spectacular, even if it is synthetic, in fact electronic music can sound quite surrealstic - we are immersed in music that is everywhere around us and the listening room completely disappears
BUT if there is no reverb, no distance cues in the recording then with stereolit there is "no distance=no soundstage", literally - "soundstage height/width/depth=0"
this is fidelity!
no stupid tricks
garbage in - garbage out
best!
graaf
For those who don´t know the concept of the Carlsson OA-50 series (probably almost everyone ) here is a picture of the setup these strange speakers are built for. There is more information about these speakers at http://www.carlssonplanet.com
In the article about the design principles of Carlsson speakers you already get an impression what the problem of these speakers is:
Recordings.
Good binaural recordings can be damned close to reality. Recordings of this kind are those of the BIS that were done with the Sennheiser MKH-105 omnidirectional small diaphragm RF modulation/demodulation microphone. And what I mean with realism is not just a fake. I have a BIS sampler where you can clearly hear the different dimensions of the different rooms.
OT:
Suggestions for good recordings are highly welcomed here.
Productions with synthetic reverb are a mess. You get a three source performance: Left speaker, right speaker, and a clump of sound between them with 2m diameter right behind the wall.
Absolutely not recommended for people who mainly listen to pop or rock music.
Drivers are Ciare HX160, IMO clearly the best of Ciare´s fullrangers. They play in one league with the Veravox drivers in terms of midrange resolution and the ability to handle complex music, but are clearly better on top. They have a strange bifurcation of the polar response, the top octave is mainly radiated in a 45° angle to the axis, which makes them ideal for this setup. Use in conventional speakers is possible, but even here they have to be rotated inwards, with axes crossing in front of the listener.
) here is a picture of the setup these strange speakers are built for. There is more information about these speakers at http://www.carlssonplanet.com In the article about the design principles of Carlsson speakers you already get an impression what the problem of these speakers is:
Recordings.
Good binaural recordings can be damned close to reality. Recordings of this kind are those of the BIS that were done with the Sennheiser MKH-105 omnidirectional small diaphragm RF modulation/demodulation microphone. And what I mean with realism is not just a fake. I have a BIS sampler where you can clearly hear the different dimensions of the different rooms.
OT:
Suggestions for good recordings are highly welcomed here.
Productions with synthetic reverb are a mess. You get a three source performance: Left speaker, right speaker, and a clump of sound between them with 2m diameter right behind the wall.
Absolutely not recommended for people who mainly listen to pop or rock music.Drivers are Ciare HX160, IMO clearly the best of Ciare´s fullrangers. They play in one league with the Veravox drivers in terms of midrange resolution and the ability to handle complex music, but are clearly better on top. They have a strange bifurcation of the polar response, the top octave is mainly radiated in a 45° angle to the axis, which makes them ideal for this setup. Use in conventional speakers is possible, but even here they have to be rotated inwards, with axes crossing in front of the listener.
Attachments
I need to have it on ear-height for good results. Maybe this is because I have less reflecting wooden ceilings. With ceiling firing systems like in graaf´s thread http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=121385 this was similar.
el`Ol said:
You have suggested that ceiling firing system (for short - CFS) like the one I have proposed is better "all rounder":
el`Ol said:
what is the advantage of the Carlssons over CFS?
You have said above that in comparison to "stereolith positioning" "the Carlsson arrangement gives you a sense for the room"
what about CFS?
best!
graaf
First some words to the moderator:
I would find it useful to merge this thread from post 26 on with the thread mentioned in post 28.
A brief comparison between CFS, Carlsson and Stereolith-like setup(SLS): The Carlsson gives you the impression of sitting in a real room (and this is not the listening room). Different binaural recordings lead to the perception of different room dimensions. I can´t say whether they are 100% correct, but they are different and they are realistic.
Both CFS and SLS, same as carlsson, give you a better impression that instruments are "really there" than a conventional setup. The main difference between SLS and CFS is the width of the soundstage. Both however don´t give you the impression of a real room, despite real-sonding instruments (hard to describe to someone who hasn´t heard it).
A short experiment with a baffle like used in ambiophonics i did some time ago showed a result that is not substantially different from the SLS, maybe a bit better, but you really need that legendary vise for your head. The ambiophonics concept http://www.ambiophonics.org deals with the width and room information deficit by using many speakers and massive DSP power.
My recommendation for an "allrounder" that is, in contrast to the Carlsson, capable of handling synthetic reverb, is the CFS. As reported in a German forum the Visaton B200 works very well in a TL. The TQWT I built for the Ciare HX201 (which has a similar polar response) has the disadvantage of a huge upper bass bump, that would need some really large caps&coils for compensation. A compensation of the ~1.5 kHz bump that could appear with the B200, dependent of the listening room, may need a notch. Of course one could build a speaker with bass support for either of the two, like I intend for the HX160-Carlsson.
I would find it useful to merge this thread from post 26 on with the thread mentioned in post 28.
A brief comparison between CFS, Carlsson and Stereolith-like setup(SLS): The Carlsson gives you the impression of sitting in a real room (and this is not the listening room). Different binaural recordings lead to the perception of different room dimensions. I can´t say whether they are 100% correct, but they are different and they are realistic.
Both CFS and SLS, same as carlsson, give you a better impression that instruments are "really there" than a conventional setup. The main difference between SLS and CFS is the width of the soundstage. Both however don´t give you the impression of a real room, despite real-sonding instruments (hard to describe to someone who hasn´t heard it).
A short experiment with a baffle like used in ambiophonics i did some time ago showed a result that is not substantially different from the SLS, maybe a bit better, but you really need that legendary vise for your head. The ambiophonics concept http://www.ambiophonics.org deals with the width and room information deficit by using many speakers and massive DSP power.
My recommendation for an "allrounder" that is, in contrast to the Carlsson, capable of handling synthetic reverb, is the CFS. As reported in a German forum the Visaton B200 works very well in a TL. The TQWT I built for the Ciare HX201 (which has a similar polar response) has the disadvantage of a huge upper bass bump, that would need some really large caps&coils for compensation. A compensation of the ~1.5 kHz bump that could appear with the B200, dependent of the listening room, may need a notch. Of course one could build a speaker with bass support for either of the two, like I intend for the HX160-Carlsson.
Hello Pelanj,
Well quoting from here
http://www.stereolith.ch/db/stereo/template=intro.html&var=ln=en
it says "To guarantee three-dimensional spatial sound reproduction, it is essential to distribute the signals from one loudspeaker cabinet, using a dipole effect."
So I don't know if elements are wired out of phase or not.
- Elias
Well quoting from here
http://www.stereolith.ch/db/stereo/template=intro.html&var=ln=en
it says "To guarantee three-dimensional spatial sound reproduction, it is essential to distribute the signals from one loudspeaker cabinet, using a dipole effect."
So I don't know if elements are wired out of phase or not.
- Elias
Elias said:
pelanj said:
correct - no dipole null
this rather a bipole with right channel signal going to the right and left channel signal going to the left
mono tweeter is not essential for this to work
the working principle is IMHO the same as working pricinple of ambiopole of ambiophonics, mentioned by el`Ol above
so this is a kind of the so called "transaural stereo" or "crosstalk cancelled stereo"
off course crosstalk is not really cancelled but it's negative effect is sufficiently diminished
mono tweeter was introduced in the current line of Stereolith loudspeakers
I believe that the main cause of this was expiry of Mr Schupbach's earlier Stereolith patents
loudspeakers made according to original Stereolith patents are still in production in Switzerland: http://www.duetto.ch/
frankly speaking I don't understand a word in theories described in those patents, about "acoustical coupling"
and so on it all works well without sloped baffles, "different acoustical coupling frequencies" etc.
proof is in Stereolith speakers themselves - earlier work well without mono tweeters, current work well without sloped baffles
best!
graaf
Yes, I have read that - but from the further description it seems, that more a "bipole" than "dipole" - but I have not used one in person, so I cannot really tell. And the older models look like they support my theory.
It would make sense to make it as a dipole - actualy there are similar setups like this one - but they use full range for the R+L signal in the front and a dipole at sides for L-R signal.
It would make sense to make it as a dipole - actualy there are similar setups like this one - but they use full range for the R+L signal in the front and a dipole at sides for L-R signal.
Hello Graaf,
Without mono tweeter high freqs will reach the ear by wall bounce, unless side tweeters have exeptional wide dispersion. Sloped baffle help with side tweeters of course.
But I don't see anything that would provide cross talk cancellation in Stereolith. The only thing that has similarities to Ambiophonics is the center location of speaker nothing more. And the reason for Ambiophonics having center location is pinna localisation. For that reason Stereolith can have some merit as it does not provide contradictory localisation cues for the ear as normal stereo does.
- Elias
graaf said:
Without mono tweeter high freqs will reach the ear by wall bounce, unless side tweeters have exeptional wide dispersion. Sloped baffle help with side tweeters of course.
But I don't see anything that would provide cross talk cancellation in Stereolith. The only thing that has similarities to Ambiophonics is the center location of speaker nothing more. And the reason for Ambiophonics having center location is pinna localisation. For that reason Stereolith can have some merit as it does not provide contradictory localisation cues for the ear as normal stereo does.
- Elias
Elias said:
apparently nothing wrong with that
even Mr Schupbach himself claims that decisive spatial cues are contained <1.5 kHz, especially around 1 kHz
therefore he could get rid of separate L/R tweeters
Elias said:
yes, I suppose so
I just don't buy theories about "acoustical coupling at different frequencies" and so on
Elias said:
please read more carefully
this is what I have posted:
but of course a question - how?
well, what about directivity of a dynamic driver on a baffle?
Elias said:
yes, but not all "normal stereo" give "contradictory localisation cues"
this is not inevitable
as Moulton observes "loudspeakers are perceived in stereo as early reflections of a sound whose direct version we missed"
this is not a problem as such at all
what can be problematic is where those early reflections occur
when they occur in the middle of the room the result just have to be highly unnatural
but when we integrate "the speakers as early reflections" into the room walls - "left reflection" into the left wall, right into the right we have completely different story
this is what Harold Beveridge has done
and there is more methods of acoustically hiding loudspeakers in the room to sufficiently diminish "contradictory localisation cues"
sufficiently diminish!
best!
graaf
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.