Not sure why you're getting defensive every time a concept comes up you're unfamiliar with. See the discussion about how interchannel level differences lead to interaural time differences in 2-speaker stereo reproduction.
as said, I do not have come to anything which I would call "a conclusion".
the system I'm talking about does not simply "add spaciousness". It does much more than that.
It creates a reproduction which is way much more believable, "realistic", "lifelike". There is almost no "sweet spot". You can move around freely (almost) for the whole room without sensible alteration or degradation of the image. It always remains stable, in the same place and with the same size while you move around the room. This is something that almost no other system I ever listened to is able to do.
That's one of the reasons why I would not call it just an "effect", but rather a "quality".
I have not heard Graaf's system - which is quite different from what I have experience of - thus I can not say anything about it. Since there are some common "features", I have guessed that they may behave similarly. Or perhaps they do not. I don't know.
we have two ears, and that's enough... why should we assume that two channels must be "too small a pipeline"?
no way. I've heard a few such things and what you get is completely different from what I'm talkin' about. The only thing which may (sometimes) come close is "ambiophonics", but IME with it you get a ridiculously small "sweet spot", not to mention all the other problems.
again: for "conventional" systems. There's no proof that this is true in general, for any system, including the ones which have been designed and optimized to purposely exploit ceiling (and other) reflections.
sorry, this means nothing. 100% of the systems (where in the system I always consider also the listening room, speaker placement, etc) are different from each other and from what have been used for monitoring and mastering. Every system (including "conventional" ones) will create its own alternative "effect" (I'd call it alternative "presentation", though).
Nobody will ever get the very same results that you had intended, no matter what.
Thus, what's wrong with an "unconventional" system if its own particular presentation is subjectively more enjoyable than that of a "conventional" one?
then why there are so many different systems around? why there is no absolute "best" one, no matter the cost/price?
Was the "puzzle" well known, we would know how to create an optimal design. We would have a real "audio engineering". Unfortunately, there is no such thing. We do not even come close to that. We have learned how to produce some (rough) effects, we know how to optimize results for our instruments, but we know very little (if anything) about what/how to optimize for our own hearing (and "listening pleasure").
you can't, with any known system.
As a matter of fact, there's no such thing as a unique, absolutely "best" (let alone perfect, or at least "optimal") system.
There are plenty of people who even prefer mono to stereo!
And they do have very good reasons for that. Having more than one (correlated) sound source emitting in a room unavoidably creates a lot of problems (comb filtering, to name one...) which mono inherently avoids.
The more channels you add, the more problems you get.
Multichannel is not a solution. It's just an easy way to create some home cinema effects even with the typical consumer systems and "casual" setups most (non-audiophile) people have.
But, IMO/IME, for music listening it's a no-no. Good old stereo is way better at it.
If you are one of those many people who do not need realistic imaging to enjoy music reproduction, mono is even better.
(that's definitely not my own case: without "proper", believable imaging I am simply unable to enjoy any sound reproduction. That's the main reason why not only I do not enjoy mono, but do not and can not enjoy listening to music using any kind of headphones/earphones).
did you built the "periakusma"? Did you replicate exactly Graaf system, in a room similar to his own? Let me doubt it...
Graaf and I are talking about two quite different systems, which share only the fact that both of them favors reflected sound over direct one, and directs most/much of their emission toward the ceiling. Likely, also the listening results may be quite different between the two.
any other system would do the same. Including "conventional" ones. It's enough to move the speakers around in the room to completely change everything...
Moreover, likely it also depends a lot on your own recording & mastering techniques. It could be that what you do only works with "conventional" systems. As I said, the system I'm talking about works more or less with any recording, but definitely not equally well. There are recordings which sounds fantastically, other which are not as good. As it happens with ANY other system, conventional or not.
neither here, AFAIK. But you were talking about numbers. And big numbers are about consumer market, not audiophile one...
good for them. I don't care what they do. It's their business, not mine.The market and the industry cares.
I have gone DIY because I did not like what the market had to offer. I do not like mainstream. I wanted to try something different. Go for my own way(s). Had I liked what the market had to offer, I would have gone shopping. I would have not cared to spend my time (and money) doing things myself.
no-no, you completely misunderstood! With "nope" I meant that I did have listened to several high-end multichannel systems, properly and carefully set-up. And I did not like 'em much. IME/IMO, they always tend to sound unnatural, artefacted, "artificial". Much like any highly processed and/or pan-potted stereo recording.
that's your experience, with the system(s) and recorded material you've tried. Again, my experience is pretty different.
Yet also the system I'm talking about is surely pretty different from the one(s) you've tried. Any comparison is nonsensical.
topic is "The Advantages of Floor Coupled Up-Firing Speakers". From what you say, I assume that you consider BS the claim that constitutes the topic itself!
OK, the topic subj. have changed recently. It used to be "speakers and room as a system". Now the speakers I am talking about have probably become off-topic too...
Last edited:
Interesting observations, UnixMan. I've had a little lookaround about the Periakusma, looks like an intriguing concept ...
To me it looks like yet another method, successful from the sound of it, to "fool" the hearing system into disregarding the distortion added in by the reproduction system. I would guess the human hearing system is finely attuned to decoding, reassembling sound that is largely derived from reflections; and, firstly the higher frequency distortion harmonics are significantly attenuated compared to hearing direct firing drivers, and secondly the ear is used to hearing more "noise" when tuning into largely indirectly received sound and finds it easier subjectively to discard that which is unrelated to the music.
Getting the 'everywhere sweet spot' is much harder with conventional speakers firing forward, much more effort is required to attenuate the distortion components sufficiently, because they are being aimed directly at one's ears ...
To me it looks like yet another method, successful from the sound of it, to "fool" the hearing system into disregarding the distortion added in by the reproduction system. I would guess the human hearing system is finely attuned to decoding, reassembling sound that is largely derived from reflections; and, firstly the higher frequency distortion harmonics are significantly attenuated compared to hearing direct firing drivers, and secondly the ear is used to hearing more "noise" when tuning into largely indirectly received sound and finds it easier subjectively to discard that which is unrelated to the music.
Getting the 'everywhere sweet spot' is much harder with conventional speakers firing forward, much more effort is required to attenuate the distortion components sufficiently, because they are being aimed directly at one's ears ...
I agree, but actually the Dali Helicon/Euphonia range of speakers do a good job here. Just don't toe them in. They are designed not to be toed in at all, and the imaging is still precise even thoug the sweet spot is very wide.
The B&W nautilus series (the ones I have heard), is quite the opposite. If you don't toe them in the imaging is very bad and unfocused. Toed in it's perfect but the sweet spot is very small.
yes, it is what I call the spaciousness of virtual sound sources
I think that it is an important factor for realism and I believe that multichannel can't do it.
Multichannel can convey a sense of the spaciousness of a listening space - but that is something different from the spaciousness of virtual sound sources which is about their lifelike, palpable quality
Not much info I have on that.
Some quotes:
"totally reflective system - reflecting the sound off the floor and wall"
Wall I understand, but floor ?? And why not from the ceiling ?
"There is no direct sound"
"you hear 3-dimensional stereo anywhere you stand or sit in a room"
"The wall becomes alive with music"
These sound very familiar, and represent the experiences of my early sideways bipolar stereo speaker
I found another from Scott:
Scott Custom Stereophone. Single cabinet stereophonic sound.
Interesting
Attachments
Here's more on Scott Custom Stereophone
E. H. Scott & Ravenswood - AudioKarma.org Home Audio Stereo Discussion Forums
E. H. Scott & Ravenswood - AudioKarma.org Home Audio Stereo Discussion Forums
Attachments
but such a "Stereophone" under a couch??? no way!
perhaps there was another design sold under the Scott name that came after "Stereophone"?
It also said:
"it can be slipped out of sight - under a couch"
Obviously the size of it is modest ?? Maybe it is even floor coupled ??
"under a couch" sounds certainly like floor coupled but upfiring? no way!
Okay if you say so. You came to conclusions about multichannel audio didn't you?
I think you are exaggerating just a bit here. If you move around the room, most certainly the image will pull to the speaker you are closest to. That changes the spatial perspective if nothing else.
What you are describing is the very magic speaker you say does not exist. You will break yourself into two pieces trying to have it both ways here.
Anything that changes the spatial presentation from the original is nothing more than an "effect". A game of semantics is not going to change that.
Our two ears allow us to hear sound that are coming from all directions, not just one. If you ever attended a live concert, the audio sounds are all around you, not just in front. Stereo is a front loaded only auditory experience. Ambience coming from the same direction as the primary sources(or instruments if you will) does not do much to contribute to a sense of spaciousness. Hence why the spatial enhancement block boxes of the 80's, flooders, and omnidirectional speakers have been used to CREATE spaciousness that is not in the recording itself.
Yes way! It is the same effect, and you can deny it all you want.
So where is your proof that these reflections are actually beneficial? I haven't seen any throughout the course of this discussion.
Subtle differences are one thing, profound differences are another. Flooders profoundly change the spatial presentation of the source PERIOD. It can't help but to do it, it is more reflections than direct output, exactly the opposite of the mixing monitor.
They will certainly get closer using a conventional system than they would a flooder or a omnidirectional speaker.
If you preference is "effect" speaker, then more power to you. I have no problem with people choosing the speakers they like. I like accuracy, you like euphonic listening. I certainly don't want to take away the pleasure of your preference.
Probably because they are built to support a format that has some profound and well known weaknesses.
Much like beauty, best is the in ears of the beholder. There are reviewers out there who have heard A LOT of speakers, and some of them have a "best" speaker. The more speakers you listen to, the easier it is to have a "better" and "best" opinion.
No you couldn't. You are always limited by physics when dealing with electro-mechanical devices.
Are you speaking from your limitations, or everyone's?
Red herring statements.
Where are they? Nobody is creating any recordings to satisfy that itch. There aren't even many mono recording left in the marketplace. You are exaggerating for effect here.
Mono also avoids any level of spatial presentation as well. That is not natural at all.
And your proof of this statement? I have never heard anyone but you make such a statement. This is completely counter to my day to day experience working with both stereo and multichannel.
This is where you limited experience with multichannel fails you. First there is no such thing as a "home cinema effect", it does not exist. Second, the multichannel music format is an extension of stereo. When well done, it fixes the spatial distortion of stereo. In a live recording, the audience and the instruments are in their right spatial places. With stereo it is not. In a live recording the ambiance is properly placed to the sides and rear - stereo can't do that. Because you have only two speakers, there is a lot of things stereo can't do. If your limit of your understanding of multichannel music is based on movie sound, then you are profoundly underexposed and inexperienced with the format.
The ridiculousness of this statement is staggering. What can a two channel system do that a multichannel can't. Does it image better across the front stage? No, according to THX listening experiments(published in audio magazine in 1999) three front speakers were better at precise imaging than two were. The soundstage was wider, and deeper according to listeners notes. Are two more dynamic than three? No, it is not. So what magical properties does stereo have that multichannel does not?
So it looks like your lack of IME highly affects the IMO.
did you built the "periakusma"? Did you replicate exactly Graaf system, in a room similar to his own? Let me doubt it...
Irrelevant statement. Let me dismiss it
So the only way to evaluate a speaker design is in a very specific room now?
Fairly obvious conclusion.
There is a huge difference between subtle changes between different systems, and a profound change. The flooders I heard so changed my recordings, they didn't even sound like they were mine. Smeared detail, overblown imaging, and soft transients were just some of the changes. When he flipped the speaker so it faced me(less reflections), it sounded a lot closer to what my recordings are supposed to sound like.
Give me a freakin break here. What a profoundly dumb statement to make.
All speakers can "work" with more or less any recording, so what makes the speaker you are talking about any different?
Well according to NDP they don't even have a big consumer market here.
Here is another individual that does not understand the difference between the "system" and the "recording". Unless the speakers are poorly designed, it will not have a artifacted artificial sound. If it is poorly designed, then the system was not a very high quality system - it could have been high priced. Big difference. The recording on the other hand CAN sound artificial, and there are some that do. Artistic mixing(such a Dark Side of the Moon) can sound unnatural to some, but natural was not Alan Parson's goal.(it was James Guthrie's though) So either you heard multichannel through poorly designed speakers, or poorly recorded software which "slants" your conclusion. There is nothing artificial or unnatural about concert hall or performance venue ambiance. That is mostly, if not all that is in the surrounds. Occasionally you will run into a recording where the engineer wanted to widen the front soundfield by putting bits of frontal information in the side speakers, but there is nothing unnatural about that either. It is in the recording itself.
It is one thing to live with multichannel, and it is another to hear it in a showroom or a audio show. That goes for stereo as well. When you live with a multichannel system, and have many multichannel recordings to listen to, you come to very different conclusions about the format than a person who hears it in passing with just a few recordings.
Your experience is basically in a vacuum though. You made absolutely no comparison to a reference, and I did. Without a comparison or reference, you cannot come to any listening experience conclusions - it becomes purely subjective opinion. If you don't know what the source is supposed to sound like, then how do you know a flooder does not distort its imaging?
This is the basic weakness of your comments and conclusions. They were made in a vacuum - your vacuum.
You don't know this, you weren't there. You didn't see the speakers, you haven't heard them, so how can you make this statement credible? You can't, you are assuming.
topic is "The Advantages of Floor Coupled Up-Firing Speakers". From what you say, I assume that you consider BS the claim that constitutes the topic itself!
OK, the topic subj. have changed recently. It used to be "speakers and room as a system". Now the speakers I am talking about have probably become off-topic too...
LOLOLOLOL
"the source" aka "the reference" = how it sounded in his studio on his main monitors
Well I care, a little. But since I can rarely know what it is, it becomes of little consequence. That's too bad, but that's how it is. Better defined systems, like cinema multichannel, offer a greater chance of the final reproduction being close to the the mix and master.
For me it's a lot like the fine art printing business. When reproducing a painting we tried to match the original as much as possible - and we had the original on hand to match. Printing photographs is easier, it just has to look good.
For me it's a lot like the fine art printing business. When reproducing a painting we tried to match the original as much as possible - and we had the original on hand to match. Printing photographs is easier, it just has to look good.
The source is called either the multichannel format, or multichannel music. Take your pick.