During my experinemts with the HX201 I absorbed the "ceiling beams" with pillows and there wasn't much treble left.
and I will buy this Sony 1200
well, maybe
I can have it for ca 250 Euro - is it worth trying for the money?
I saw one going away at Ebay for 350 € recently. You will rather gain than lose if you sell it again.
After you stated that "we never ever hear the frequency content of the direct sound as such" (which equals to perceiving no pitch, no timbre, no sound at all), I'm more than interested how YOU explain how we still can hear normally when there are no room reflections like in an anechoic chamber
ok, it is sad that You want me to explain that but ok, whatever, here it goes:
I stated that "we never ever hear the frequency content of the direct sound as such" which means that "we DON'T hear the frequency content of the direct sound as such"
of course I mean when we are listening to music through a speaker system because we are discussing not only multi channel but listening to music in the first place,
and the news of course...
and it doesn't mean that we CAN'T under unnatural laboratory conditions like an anechoic chamber
and a field covered by snow of course...
who listens to music in an anechoic chamber or a field covered by snow?
and it certainly doesn't sound normally, we cannot say that "we still can hear normally" in an anechoic chamber, the feeling is that the situation is rather abnormal
yes, we can hear but it is not like hearing normally
it is not normal situation, except perhaps for Inuit and their fields covered by snow of course...
geeez, I think that finally I have enough of this disscusion
Last edited:
still I hesitate
I wonder how would it react to such unusual speaker as the flooder
in the manual I read (p. 14) that:
I am curious why? Does it indirectly tell something about how the correction works?
was the sound coming from the floor?
best,
graaf
I had the speakers on ear-height and I don't remember how the imaging was. Too long ago.
geeez, I think that finally I have enough of this disscusion
Just because someone has proven you wrong?
The direct sound is perceived in location, pitch and timbre. It doesn't matter if it is coming from a loudspeaker or a natural sound source.
A violin in an anechoic chamber sounds like a violin minus the room. That's all.
That's because the direct sound is lacking higher frequency because the directivity of big broadband drivers strongly increasing with frequency. You would need to EQ it to be flat on listening axis. I once did this for a B200:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
yes, that's all indeed
because I really don't know what to say, there is no communication, the level of misunderstanding is beyond me
a violin minus the room and so on
ok Markus, You win!
I am all proven wrong and the right-ness is all Yours! Be happy!
I wish You the very best!
graaf
geeez, I think that finally I have enough of this disscusion
Reading this thread, but staying out of it, I'd have to say that there are several people giving hand waving arguments and Markus describing things as they are known to be as well as pointing out when the "hand waving" has exceeded what we know.
People need to understand that when they do a test and "think" that they hear some results that this is not data. Its one observation that is more likely to be false - because of bias - than true.
Steinberg, Snow and Fletcher used 3 discrete channels. The de facto standard is to have 2 channels and 2 loudspeakers set up in an equilateral triangle.
A short historical summary can be found in Wittek's thesis.
It is possible to transport more than 2 discrete channels in 2 transmission channels, see MS recording technique or Dolby Surround.
Looks like you're not aware of the various ITU, ISO and DIN norms that exist.
So this is what your "system" does? How?
There's no communication because you just draw conclusion from zillion of often unrelated comments instead of sitting down reading and learning the basics. You can't talk about theory of relativity without knowing the basics of physics.
enters the "Commercial Sector", welcome!
ok, I have enough
I don't sell anything therefore I really have no need to discuss with some people
Very poor attitude, I must say.
The sound within the fusion interval, not the direct sound.
Psychoacoustic research is also what people think to hear. Just more of them statistically analyzed. And when nobody can faithfully describe what he hears alone because of "bias" we'll have to close most of the threads in this forum.
And that's all it is - a de facto quasi standard. In the history of stereo it has only been limited to this layout from a short time in the mid sixties to the early 70s with the first commercial quadraphonic releases. And maybe I would consider to de facto standard once again after the death of quad in the early 80s. But even then there was still DPL and DPLII to come. As far as I can tell stereo was never strictly stereophonic.
Not discrete sorry. Just other stereophony formats that are basically based on Hafler's dynaquad.
And why does it look like that? Because I actually try to find what works for me instead of what worked for some controlled study or half baked standard?
Well that and a little more.
And how big is that? 50 to 100 ms?? Certainly NOT. The interaural time difference of a single sound source is max. 630 microseconds (I'm not sure that graaf misinterpreted this as milliseconds). For interchannel time differences it's 1,5 milliseconds max. But this has nothing to do with sound recognition, i.e. with our ability to recognize a violin as such.
Reporting observations is one thing but drawing conclusions solely based on these subjective observations is another.
What's the difference between "stereo" and "stereophonic"?
Don't understand what you're trying to say.
Audio reproduction is not what works for you, it's what works for everybody. A road has to be drivable for every car not just for yours.
I hope you will tell us someday what your "system" does because we still don't know anything about it. The sound files you posted are not "360° imaging", nowhere near 180°, more like normal stereo with some room effects added. Nothing that could not have been applied in mixing or mastering.
One sound file is louder than the other. That's one of the first things you have to control when doing comparative listening.
I don't understand why you are working on some "system" (all former attempts have failed) when there IS already a "system" available that overcomes the limitations of stereo: multichannel.
Last edited: