You hear that Earl? Guess we should have gave up making speakers with the invention of the first 2 way according to markus.
I have striven to make the system objectively right and free of euphonics. If there was a commercial product that did exactly what I wanted I would have just used it - that was the original plan. But there isn't one that just worked and worked well, so I had to make it myself.
I don't object to multi-channel, but its certainly not the mainstream today. Will it ever be? Its very hard to tell. For most audio playback situations (common to the guy in the street) multi-channel doesn't add much if anything (cars, headphones, etc.) so as a media source I think that the hill may be too steep to climb. So as of right now 2 channel is still the defacto standard and is going to be for quite awhile yet. I have multi-channel in my listening room now, but I only use it for movies. 99% of my pure listening is 2 channel, but there is some really great multi-channel live performances out there, and some overly mixed crap as well. Only time will tell.
But to the guys here, multichannel adds exactly what they are obviously missing in 2-channel stereo reproduction: spaciousness.
That is correct. If the playback room itself does not add enough spaciousness without compromising imaging - a very common situation, but not in my rooms - then multi-channel is the best solution, even if it is simulated. Its far better that the crazy schemes being proposed here.
The HX201 and the B200 have a 10 dB rise towards the treble. The reflection "eats" these 10 dB and together with the direct sound the result is fairly flat.
BTW, when I talk about reflection I mean it in a physical sense. I don't think it's a reflection in a psychoacoustic sense. The fact that such a speaker can not be sharply localized speaks for a fusion phenomenon.
The direct sound is perceived in (...) pitch and timbre. under anechoic conditions ONLY - O N L Y
never ever in normal circumstances
not fusion interval but integration time is the right term:
Rolf Bader, Institute of Musicology, University of Hamburg
after about 50ms we begin to perceive a pitch
after about 250ms the pitch can be heard clearly
ASA 149th Meeting Lay Language Papers Microthythmic characteristics of musical instrument initial transients
thank You
Last edited:
I meant it in a physical sense too. What you have basically created with a "ceiling flodder" is a 4 speaker setup: direct sound from two speakers plus two strong single reflections. The sound is localized somewhere between the speaker location and the strong single reflection. The bigger the delay between arrival of direct and reflected sound, the bigger the apparant source width.
Gestalt recognition is different from perception of sound source direction (localization). You're mixing up facts. Please do yourself a favor and read a good book that explains the basics like Howard/Angus "Acoustics and Psychoacoustics".
source width?
You perhaps mean apparent source height?
Or are You just mixing up facts?Please, show us the data concerning impact of a vertical reflection on sound localisation
(the above request is purely rethorical)
can You read?
where is anything about "Gestalt recognition" in the quoted text? or about "localisation"?
He is talking about pitch perception - p e r c e p t i o n
Please do yourself (and us) a favor and read it again and again and again and again.....
to make myself clear - by "Commercial Sector" I don't mean "every commercial product" but something more specific
obviously crazy Swedes don't care about the data and being right, peer-reviewed and in agreement with big books
damned Vikings!!
graaf, there's no need in trying to be sarcastic.
No, I'm not mixing up the facts. ASW corresponds to height when looking at summing localization in the median plane because sound sources are not perceived in clear-cut shapes.
There is one study I'm aware of (sorry, only German): T. Behrens, H. Prante, C. Maschke, ‘Untersuchungen zur Summenlokalisation in der Medianebene’. Proc. of DAGA 94, Dresden, pp. 1157-1160. (1994)
source width?
You perhaps mean apparent source height?
No, I'm not mixing up the facts. ASW corresponds to height when looking at summing localization in the median plane because sound sources are not perceived in clear-cut shapes.
There is one study I'm aware of (sorry, only German): T. Behrens, H. Prante, C. Maschke, ‘Untersuchungen zur Summenlokalisation in der Medianebene’. Proc. of DAGA 94, Dresden, pp. 1157-1160. (1994)
Please try to express yourself in a more objective way.
There's probably nothing about localization in that text but it was you that referred to that text in the context of localization. I just pointed out that localization and gestalt recognition (which includes pitch perception) are two different topics that should not be mixed.
Again I fail to see the distinction. I can play discrete surround sound. You know the handful that are available compared to the seemingly infinite amount of stereo recordings which somehow seems to work better. But yeah I can playback DVD-A, SACD, Hi Res etc.. You seem to be drawing arbitrary lines about what a system should perform. Are we really looking for a true "reference system"? Are we authentically looking for the optimal or just for some self gratification that it's already been found here?
Nothing I am proposing here is exactly new or crazy, just unaccepted and unknown to you and in general most "experts". People understand a little bit about what I am talking about and I have seen plenty of theories tossed around. But do we know that we have truly heard the full potential of stereo and the recordings that we already have in our collection? I don't think in general most people have let alone what could be accomplished with newer and better techniques which will benefit both traditional stereo and stereo-surround.
The thing is from my perspective the people that will reject my ideas without even giving it a listen, based on erroneous theories about causation, are just as bad as people who are phobic of crossovers. My crossover just works spacially is all. In my experience as someone who first thought the entire idea was ** I can honestly say in retrospect that getting this surround decoder to work was the single best upgrade to my listening habits besides getting "good speakers" to do it with.
Edit: I Quoted Gedds but I was more ranting in general lol and a little directed at the original question posed by markus. Reading it back that rant seems heated but please don't take me that seriously
Last edited:
What are You talking about?
fortunately it is all up there in the previous posts
I stated that "we never ever hear the frequency content of the direct sound as such"
nowhere nothing about localization
then You put my above statement into question and suggested that I am mixing up facts and also proven wrong
I respond with the quoted text, that's all, everyone can read it
what I see now is rather You making up facts about what I have posted here, shame on You!
and we know something about localisation in vertical plane, it doesn't rely on binaural cues (no wonder) but on HRTF and pinnae, even uncle google knows it:
discussed also here:
AES E-Library: Vertical Localization of Sound from Multiway Loudspeakers
ps.
Did Behrens, Prante und Maschke write it?
Last edited:
There have been some studies concerning localization in the
vertical plane.
An experiment from Roffler and Butler 1968 using tonebursts
showed the vertical angle of the auditive event to be independent
from the vertical angle of the loudspeaker. The frequency of the
tonebursts was the main cue.
The experiment is cited by Blauert 1974.
Blauert made experiments with terz filtered noise and found
"directional frequency bands" that cause localization in the
vertical plane. These bands correspond to the angle dependent
filter function of the pinna.
A characteristic peak at about 8Khz occurs when sound from
above hits the pinna.
---
I once used that effect - or the inverse if you like -
when i placed an ensemble of speakers under the
ceiling at a stand on a fair.
I made a notch filter that tried to match the inverse of the
pinna effect. The goal was to achieve reluctant sound and
to avoid that "supermarket feeling". I made the filter's Q
adjustable in two steps and asked some people, without
telling them the setting, which version was more "comfortable":
Without notch / low Q / high Q.
There was strong preference for the filtered versions.
The low Q notch filter, which meant moderate
compensation of the pinna effect was slightly preferred
to the high Q version.
This was long ago, so i haven't got the exact values
anymore. It was not for science, it was just an ad hoc idea.
Of course the speakers could still be localized, but the
uncomfortable feeling, that "sound comes from above"
could be reduced.
On the other hand one can assume that a tweeter
arrangement peaking at ~8Khz has the corresonding
effect - an irritation of the vertical angle or extension
of the listening event has to be expected.
Respecting the directional bands found by Blauert
is a good good idea, when designing loudspeakers.
vertical plane.
An experiment from Roffler and Butler 1968 using tonebursts
showed the vertical angle of the auditive event to be independent
from the vertical angle of the loudspeaker. The frequency of the
tonebursts was the main cue.
The experiment is cited by Blauert 1974.
Blauert made experiments with terz filtered noise and found
"directional frequency bands" that cause localization in the
vertical plane. These bands correspond to the angle dependent
filter function of the pinna.
A characteristic peak at about 8Khz occurs when sound from
above hits the pinna.
---
I once used that effect - or the inverse if you like -
when i placed an ensemble of speakers under the
ceiling at a stand on a fair.
I made a notch filter that tried to match the inverse of the
pinna effect. The goal was to achieve reluctant sound and
to avoid that "supermarket feeling". I made the filter's Q
adjustable in two steps and asked some people, without
telling them the setting, which version was more "comfortable":
Without notch / low Q / high Q.
There was strong preference for the filtered versions.
The low Q notch filter, which meant moderate
compensation of the pinna effect was slightly preferred
to the high Q version.
This was long ago, so i haven't got the exact values
anymore. It was not for science, it was just an ad hoc idea.
Of course the speakers could still be localized, but the
uncomfortable feeling, that "sound comes from above"
could be reduced.
On the other hand one can assume that a tweeter
arrangement peaking at ~8Khz has the corresonding
effect - an irritation of the vertical angle or extension
of the listening event has to be expected.
Respecting the directional bands found by Blauert
is a good good idea, when designing loudspeakers.
here is another interesting study taking into account "floor reflection transfer function":
http://dev.icad.org/Proceedings/2005/CabreraFerguson2005.pdf
most interesting is the "Franssen Effect":
Franssen Effect
Franssen Effect
And here is the dessert - Hartmann and Rakerd study "Localisation fo sounds in rooms" in three parts:
http://www.pa.msu.edu/acoustics/rooms1.pdf
http://www.pa.msu.edu/acoustics/rooms2.pdf
http://www.pa.msu.edu/acoustics/rooms3.pdf
and much much more:
Michigan State Acoustics/Psychoacoustics
enjoy!
graaf
http://dev.icad.org/Proceedings/2005/CabreraFerguson2005.pdf
most interesting is the "Franssen Effect":
Franssen Effect
Franssen Effect
And here is the dessert - Hartmann and Rakerd study "Localisation fo sounds in rooms" in three parts:
http://www.pa.msu.edu/acoustics/rooms1.pdf
http://www.pa.msu.edu/acoustics/rooms2.pdf
http://www.pa.msu.edu/acoustics/rooms3.pdf
and much much more:
Michigan State Acoustics/Psychoacoustics
enjoy!
graaf
Last edited: