So the only requirement for optimal sound reproduction is high similarity of direct sound and reflections, so our brain can filter them out, i.e. listening to fully constant directivity speakers in bathroom-like rooms with tiles all around has to be considered as optimal? Something's certainly wrong with that notion
So the only requirement for optimal sound reproduction is high similarity of direct sound and reflections, so our brain can filter them out, i.e. listening to fully constant directivity speakers in bathroom-like rooms with tiles all around has to be considered as optimal? Something's certainly wrong with that notion
Who said optimal? I mentioned I can hear a lot of room. But the stereo imaging is superb, and that is what we were discussing. And yes, sound quality in real rooms benefits from speakers that do not have sharp transitions between the listening window and the sound produced further off axis.
Is this good or bad?
"We"? Not what I was discussing.
Never suggested anything different, did I?
I am afraid you are right about multichannel. The problem is many think it takes a bundle of cash to put a multichannel system together, and nothing can be further from the truth. A modest system does a very good job of translating what is on the disc or drive to your ears if properly set up.
My experience with stereo(even with reflections added) never gave me the "you are there" effect. The best systems were great at bringing the performer in the room, but not transporting me to the concert hall, arena, or performance hall. You really need the recorded ambiance coming from the sides and rear to transport yourself to the recording location. Room reflections are just not strong enough to the sides of the head (90 degrees) to really give that live sense of spaciousness IMO. It does sound more spaciousness than if there were no reflections, but not enough to convince my brain it is real ambiance in the recording. Reflections within the room will always have this "sameness" in that no matter what recording is playing, the reflective pattern will always be the same.
Very interesting experiment, in some ways mimicing the MBL watermelons.
Your description of the subjective effect is right on the money, this is on the path to completely invisible speakers ...
question is if in fact there was this required symmetry, the listening distance is just a part of the equation
in case of a FCUFS it suffices not to put any obstacles in the path of the direct sound and of the first ceiling reflection, the only other requirement is that the stereo triangle should be symmetrical with regard to any assymetry of the ceiling - I mean any coverings, slopes, whereas in case a of conventional stereo triangle achievement of the required horizontal symmetry imposes total symmetry requirements on the whole room layout and wall materials
sth was definitively done wrong in that particular FCUFS setup because it is certainly not anything like I have ever experienced with such a setup and please don't tell me that I don't know about the details, that I lack reference etc. - I have always used very good headphones as a reference.
yes perhaps - to Your taste
but IT IS all in the recording, You can hear it through headphones - though not externalized, all that is lost in a conventional triangle of front firing setup and then retrevied by a FCUFS setup
to real live sound sources, they all have ASW which is lost in a conventional setup
of a FCUFS system badly set up
as much as You would certainly dislike a sonic mess resulting from a conventional system badly set up
They DON'T add anything, it is rather that coherent early reflections unmask the spaciousness which is in the recording, in proportion to their quantity. This spatial information that is lost in a conventional setup due to inherent limitations of such a setup.
Nicely put.
Now someone "simply" needs to define what "reflection quality" means in terms of reflection delay, angle, level and spectrum.
My definition is high similarity to the direct sound but just for 2 well defined directions (±55° and around ±55° elevated). All other reflections are bad if they are not below a certain level (about -20dB to -30dB below direct sound).
This results in a spacious presentation without sacrificing too much locatedness and detail/clarity.
Last edited:
but a UniQ or a similar driver has its directivity low enough that as far as FCUFS setup is concerned it is a non-issue, the required symmetry is achieved through optimized geometry
the directivity of a UniQ driver is not at all like that of a Dr Geddes' waveguide
in a FCUFS system getting right the vertical location requires a certain care, whereas in Markus' system any realistic width and depth is simply impossible to achieve
obviously, and obviously the situation is not going to change
I bet WFS is even better but anyway it is not the way to go and it is not going to be in any foreseeable future ...why? You put this well:
exactly, who is ready? How many customers?