Hello Key,
How does your system differs from Gerzon's Ambisonics?
Ambisonics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ambisonic.Net - where surround-sound comes to life
- Elias
How does your system differs from Gerzon's Ambisonics?
Ambisonics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ambisonic.Net - where surround-sound comes to life
- Elias
Generally the impression from a distance is remarkably the same as sitting close. It's like the subjective reviews you read about Geddes' and Linkwitz's speakers where the tonality barely shifts except it's wider and more obvious. You get a "super stereo" effect from a distance but it is really strange when you get up from the normal listening spot after a while and walk away with a song playing. You can get up turn around and walk around the corner and the tonality doesn't shift.
Hmm less impractical? Generally I think hexaphonic or any rear speakers are going to be for perfectionists or mixers. Quad is plenty to immerse most any casual listener. If you start to pick it apart too much or see through the illusion then adding a fifth channel or a sixth will help. But the improvement is not that great like moving from mono to stereo or stereo to quad. Sonic advantages would be that it actually works, isn't colored, and is backwards compatible with normal stereo.
Well it's possible to make an analog version but I just prefer a computer.
Does it? I mean I'm sure it measures all nice and pretty but does it really give you better control? or are you just guessing here?
Last edited:
If you mean that five-channel stuff: Many music producers are not happy with it and leave the center channel away. Some lables (among them Chesky records) once considered rebelling against 5.1.and wanted to establisch a hexaphonic setup, just not exacly 6 x 60° like Key.
Key, maybe you want to try a 2+2+2 recording from the MDG:
MDG-Musikproduktion Dabringhaus und Grimm
Here you can see what the setup looks like:
Neue Seite 1
You mean the distance from the front speakers?
is it necessary for the listener to be seated somewhere along an axis of symmetry of the setup?
how much off center can the listener move?
I understand that one can walk around and the tonality doesn't shift but what about imaging? Do the images shift?
This would be impractical in the first place (not to mention necessity of putting six speakers in the specific locations in the room and of all those wires around)
with the single driver flooder imaging is stable and robust, You can walk around and images stay in their virtual places, no images shift occurs
no tonality shift can be achieved even with non-coincident two-way flooder as Elias' test has shown
best,
graaf
thanks for the post Elias
50 such posts instead of 500 go-read-the-books posts and this would be a great thread
best,
graaf
OK,
doesn't seem as if someone can do this with a bit of Basotect in one's basement.
Electroacoustic System Specialists
Hi,
I heard the demo on several occasions.
The best I can say is that they reminded me of "pure frontal" versions of "pseudo quadro" I heard in the early 80's and the better version of "pro logic stereo" processed music, which is to say I too no great offence but preferred the presentation with the reverb effect system off.
I find the whole thread quite facinating.
I can symphasise with the "no sweet spot" results of Omni's and related concepts that propagate sound mostly indirectly and through often many reflections for the consistent and even tonality they provide and the lack of a sweet spot.
Yet even as someone who does not venerate the artificial idol and totem of soundstaging and 3d soundscaping etc. as much as the average audiophile, if I find their imaging by far too diffuse and imprecise to be a reasonable representation of musical reality, unless we are talking listening outside the actual concert hall, through a window into my smaller living room.
Of course, this is my personal preference and what happens when I listen to such systems and WHY they fail to prompt the "suspension of disbelief" in my case AT ALL.
While on the other hand systems that are highly directional and offer reasonable even directivity (the two are not identical) all do it to some degree for me and the ones where the controlled directivity extends across a sufficiently wide bandwidth do it with surprising consistency even across different styles of music.
To be the subjective removal of walls afforded by sufficiently directional systems helps to transport me into the performance venue (even if the venue is virtual) and out of my living/listening room. To me this "does it".
Yet I can perfectly "see" and accept preferences to the opposite, for reproduction, even if they lack any semblance to the "gestalt" of the performance supposedly being experienced.
In the end it matters that whoever is listening enjoys the music and the sound of the system, if not, there is no point having it, no matter what reams of research papers say.
It may best not to elevate such personal preference (be it either the one for highly directional systems, for highly diffuse systems or indeed for the common midway approach between the extremes) to a religion and to proselytise for converts...
Ciao T
I heard the demo on several occasions.
The best I can say is that they reminded me of "pure frontal" versions of "pseudo quadro" I heard in the early 80's and the better version of "pro logic stereo" processed music, which is to say I too no great offence but preferred the presentation with the reverb effect system off.
I find the whole thread quite facinating.
I can symphasise with the "no sweet spot" results of Omni's and related concepts that propagate sound mostly indirectly and through often many reflections for the consistent and even tonality they provide and the lack of a sweet spot.
Yet even as someone who does not venerate the artificial idol and totem of soundstaging and 3d soundscaping etc. as much as the average audiophile, if I find their imaging by far too diffuse and imprecise to be a reasonable representation of musical reality, unless we are talking listening outside the actual concert hall, through a window into my smaller living room.
Of course, this is my personal preference and what happens when I listen to such systems and WHY they fail to prompt the "suspension of disbelief" in my case AT ALL.
While on the other hand systems that are highly directional and offer reasonable even directivity (the two are not identical) all do it to some degree for me and the ones where the controlled directivity extends across a sufficiently wide bandwidth do it with surprising consistency even across different styles of music.
To be the subjective removal of walls afforded by sufficiently directional systems helps to transport me into the performance venue (even if the venue is virtual) and out of my living/listening room. To me this "does it".
Yet I can perfectly "see" and accept preferences to the opposite, for reproduction, even if they lack any semblance to the "gestalt" of the performance supposedly being experienced.
In the end it matters that whoever is listening enjoys the music and the sound of the system, if not, there is no point having it, no matter what reams of research papers say.
It may best not to elevate such personal preference (be it either the one for highly directional systems, for highly diffuse systems or indeed for the common midway approach between the extremes) to a religion and to proselytise for converts...
Ciao T
A good book on control room design is Philip Newell's "Recording Studio Design".
perhaps You would not find the flooder imaging "far too diffuse and imprecise"
it is not omni strictly speaking
I experience disappearing walls with the flooder
yes, very true
yes, I can see some form of religion here in this thread, religion of the book or rather books
good and right books by righteous orthodox authors because there are also wrong books by wrong authors (audiophools proposing crazy schemes) like "Total Recording" or "Art of Sound Reproduction"...
best,
graaf
Hi,
I think I messed (in a 2nd hand hifi shop) with Carlsons long before their 2nd coming (in the early 90's). And my judgement was "diffuse and imprecise". Oh, and "no bass" and a long list of other complaints and I remember a complete bewilderment as to how anyone could get basic acoustics so messed up as to actually design something like that...
Remember, I come from a studio background... My first "High End" System I ever heard was a Studio Setup.
And I have on quite a few occasion had the chance to walk from the control booth into the concert hall.
As said, I do not care how you listen to it, but I can tell me if you where to put on one of my old minimalistic recordings (who knows where they ended up after 1989 - probably in a landfill) and replay it with ceiling flooders it would sound nothing like what I recorded or what I heard in the control room, while what I heard in the control room bore at least a more than passing semblance to what I heard in the hall.
Of course, if you like what you hear with ceiling flooders much better, that what you'd hear in the control room or the concert hall, who am I to gainsay you?
Let me perhaps be absolutely clear what I mean with "disappearing walls".
It means (assuming the recordings allow this of course) essentially to be transported into a clearly much larger and different acoustic space, much more in line with (say) a large Chapel or a Church or indeed a large concert hall.
For example, the different acoustics of the Royal Festival Hall and the Barbican (both in London - the Barbican with it's horrible acoustics regularly in use for Tony Faulkners "High End" recordings of LSO - the RFH a much favoured haunt of mine to enjoy concerts) on minimalistic recordings become quite clear, though it does not quite extent to full 3d sonic hologaphy.
Is that what you experience through ceiling flooders? The replacing, to a substantial degree, of the listening space by larger and often identifiable performance spaces?
Actually, I am getting more of a feel of the second coming of the Prophet Zarquon or Carlsson or whatever his Naim be... Again, it seems to be a question of viewpoint.
Ciao T
I think I messed (in a 2nd hand hifi shop) with Carlsons long before their 2nd coming (in the early 90's). And my judgement was "diffuse and imprecise". Oh, and "no bass" and a long list of other complaints and I remember a complete bewilderment as to how anyone could get basic acoustics so messed up as to actually design something like that...
Remember, I come from a studio background... My first "High End" System I ever heard was a Studio Setup.
And I have on quite a few occasion had the chance to walk from the control booth into the concert hall.
As said, I do not care how you listen to it, but I can tell me if you where to put on one of my old minimalistic recordings (who knows where they ended up after 1989 - probably in a landfill) and replay it with ceiling flooders it would sound nothing like what I recorded or what I heard in the control room, while what I heard in the control room bore at least a more than passing semblance to what I heard in the hall.
Of course, if you like what you hear with ceiling flooders much better, that what you'd hear in the control room or the concert hall, who am I to gainsay you?
Let me perhaps be absolutely clear what I mean with "disappearing walls".
It means (assuming the recordings allow this of course) essentially to be transported into a clearly much larger and different acoustic space, much more in line with (say) a large Chapel or a Church or indeed a large concert hall.
For example, the different acoustics of the Royal Festival Hall and the Barbican (both in London - the Barbican with it's horrible acoustics regularly in use for Tony Faulkners "High End" recordings of LSO - the RFH a much favoured haunt of mine to enjoy concerts) on minimalistic recordings become quite clear, though it does not quite extent to full 3d sonic hologaphy.
Is that what you experience through ceiling flooders? The replacing, to a substantial degree, of the listening space by larger and often identifiable performance spaces?
Actually, I am getting more of a feel of the second coming of the Prophet Zarquon or Carlsson or whatever his Naim be... Again, it seems to be a question of viewpoint.
Ciao T
I have ordered the book and will see whether its statements are similarly overstretched here as those of some religious ones in certain circles.
I think I messed (in a 2nd hand hifi shop) with Carlsons long before their 2nd coming (in the early 90's). And my judgement was "diffuse and imprecise". Oh, and "no bass" and a long list of other complaints and I remember a complete bewilderment as to how anyone could get basic acoustics so messed up as to actually design something like that...
Ciao T
You mean the Sonabs?
I don't know them and so I can't say anything about them. When I say Carlssons I only mean those of the "second coming" sold under the Carlsson label, but strictly speaking I don't know them either, just my clones.
As I said earlier I find that the biggest advantage of the pure flooder in contrast to my "2nd coming Carlsson" clones and conventional speakers is adding some "acousticness" to poorly done studio recordings. If they managed to add nothing to real acoustic recordings this would be kind of magic.
About the 2nd generation Carlssons:
What they - in contrast to conventional speakers in a conventional setup don't add (or at least to a smaller extent) is floor- and front-wall reflections. Just if someone tried to reduce them to something that has stronger-than-usual ceiling reflection.
Okay let me see if I can explain what the advantages are to my system so you get it. Let me just give a simple answer to the discrete surround sound thing - every discrete surround sound mixer I have met will use a decoder in a pinch. Sometime the decoder just does things the mixer can not do. But this isn't so much where I see a decoder helping.
When you mix a song it seems to me that there is a certain goal for "subjective constancy" if you know it or not. Many engineers might not know the specific scientific name for what they are trying to do but never the less they understand exactly how to make the mix stay roughly the same under vastly varying physical conditions - very different rooms and playback systems.
If you track in stereo using my system or one that is equivilent I know from experience that the end result will be much better. It gives you a very clear window to look into the mix at. Can you do the same thing with normal stereo? Yes, some are VERY skilled at being able to hear the actual mix through inferior playback equitment. If you can mix a subjectively constant mix on a set of NS-10s to me it's like painting a picture with an eye patch on one eye and a catarack on the other. Can you do it? Yes, but it's not the easiest way to do it.
You might think I am selling a magic bullet here but it's still not going to make a bad mixer good - it'll just let them hear first hand how bad they are. But basically if you make a mix and it sounds awesome in Hex, Quad, Stereo, that weird Q-Soundesque simulated surround in stereo, and mono the mix will translate to most any system. Wanna take a guess what album was mixed using a very similar setup?
Last edited:
Hi,
Yes. I also came across the later ones. But I never really extensively played with them.
I notice that in the 60's to 70's there was a craze for more or less omnidirectional speakers (including Amar Bose's Ball and the Grundig spherical speakers, JBL Aquarius and so on).
I suspect the Carlsson designs derive from this IMNSHO misguided craze.
Ciao T
Yes. I also came across the later ones. But I never really extensively played with them.
I notice that in the 60's to 70's there was a craze for more or less omnidirectional speakers (including Amar Bose's Ball and the Grundig spherical speakers, JBL Aquarius and so on).
I suspect the Carlsson designs derive from this IMNSHO misguided craze.
Ciao T
Hi,
Would not perchance using a Lexicon reverb or maybe an Eventide (or just the latest waves reverb plugin in you PC Playback Software) used in the signal path for such recordings only be a better choice than making a speaker system specifically for these issues?
Unless such recordings make up most of ones listening of course or one has the space and budget for many top notch speakers of fundamentally different acoustic structure/dispersion/directivity of course.
Ciao T
Would not perchance using a Lexicon reverb or maybe an Eventide (or just the latest waves reverb plugin in you PC Playback Software) used in the signal path for such recordings only be a better choice than making a speaker system specifically for these issues?
Unless such recordings make up most of ones listening of course or one has the space and budget for many top notch speakers of fundamentally different acoustic structure/dispersion/directivity of course.
Ciao T
Sorry Key, I still don't get it. If the music industry doesn't want to use a new standard that is already adopted by a lot of consumers then that's ok with me. But proposing an alternative standard that allows only inferior control of the sound field and uses as many additional loudspeakers as the existing standard doesn't make any sense to me.