Here, http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...ns-beaten-behringer-what-279.html#post3447054. You responded that that was not useful to you, and that was the end of the matter.
I have been doing "something about it" for the last 26 years, on and off -- if it was so easy to sort out then the methods would be common knowledge by now, everyone would be enjoying "spacious stereo" as an everyday occurrence ...
I have been doing "something about it" for the last 26 years, on and off -- if it was so easy to sort out then the methods would be common knowledge by now, everyone would be enjoying "spacious stereo" as an everyday occurrence ...
I think there are many issues involved with not having realistic spaciousness. You are saying it cannot be done in small rooms, which I agree if it's a room not specifically designed for best audio performance. The acoustic part is not the only part involved. This is why I had to do speakers, wires and interconnects, amplifiers, and may have to do D/A. If you can only limit your thoughts to acoustic, then you can never find what you are looking for. There comes to time where also some trade-offs are necessary depending on what you feel is more important.
LOL, in many threads, I have posted measurements to explain my views, but never seen anyone else show theirs in direct response. So don't keeps your hopes too high that someone will. The general steps we use to accomplish better fidelity is below, which is what we call a development cycle consistent with what the DOD has specified.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I just came back from a local store that have our newly announced product on run-in. Since some responded that the sound was somewhat inferior to what they expected, I recommended a full run-in before listening demonstrations. But when I went to listen as well, the store owner and I were discussing what was wrong. Finally it dawned on me that the sound I was hearing there was very similar to what some of the alternate power supply configurations we tried, and I remembered that during prep of the demo units, we ran out of one type of capacitor, and had to put in a substitute in the line filter. Since the substitute never was measured in the lab, the only thing we knew from experience and data accumulated was that it will still comply with EMC/EMI requirements. The result of listening? The sound had less focus, spaciousness was reduced, less detail, as a whole, the sound seemed unemotional.
If you are insisting that a solution in only in one area, you may never accomplish your goals. Nobody can give you specific answers because each case is totally different. I could change the sequence of a series RC network and get different sonic perception. Additionally, some of the questions you may want answered to are actually trade secrets which people don't reveal easily. So perhaps if you are really serious, it makes sense to do some ground work; I have been involved with that for the past 9 years or more not including my audiophile years. I started studying audio circuits because it was easier for me to understand control systems which was over 30 years ago.
Last edited:
It still is the end of the matter because what you say is "use gear that is capable but I can't/won't define what that means".
Well, I do. My "method" works every time. It's a simple process of reducing reflections to the max. for best clarity and localization, and adding one single loud lateral reflection to add spaciousness. Done.
This assumes a highly symmetrical setup and tightly matched in-room transfer function of L and R.
Last edited:
We all agree with that! But how to carry these cues best and be in/with the recording, not watch it through a smallish window?
But you also mentioned some deficiency with that kind of setup, and I also explained some other possible causes. Not sure if you cared to check or not. But if you think you have obtained the best trade-off you can accept, it really is the end of it.
I will define what it means, but I can't in a fashion that would be acceptable to you. In essence it's reducing distortion in playback, but I can't say what the critical level is because I haven't the technical equipment capable of measuring what my ears are telling me. Until I have such, and do extensive, probably original, testing with specialised waveforms as input I won't be getting the numerical answers that can used as reference markers.
Yes, "artificial" enhancement, which certainly is a valid way of doing things. However, it can be a better auditory experience if the spaciousness cues in the recording itself are recovered and rendered clearly: each recording then has a unique acoustic signature, which matches what was recorded at the time, and the producer's and artists' intent ...
Really? You're disappointed because I won't give you a recipe with ingredients, weights, cooking times? There IS no one recipe, and why would it be up to me to provide you with one?
You've seen ample documentation for a system that can do exactly what you claim can not be done, and now I'm selling snake oil? That makes no sense to me.
This sounds to me like the owner of a small airplane insisting over and over that planes can't fly over 20,000 feet or faster than the speed of sound - then saying "we'll 99.9% of us can't afford an airplane like that." when shown photos of an airplane that can. Yeah, so what? Does that mean that those big airplanes can't do exactly what was claimed no airplane can?
I keep reading absolutist claims about what can and can't be done with stereo, but then I read waffling on the subject when verifiable claims to the contrary are presented. Do we get to change the terms mid-course?
Yes, the bigger and better the system, the bigger and better the effect. But size is not the only factor. I've tried to get that same sense of space and precision imaging out of large P.A. systems in rooms much larger than Kiron, and it always fell flat. It's not just size and efficiency that matter.
I've also heard it in hotel rooms from Denver to Dallas. My friend John B seems to be able to do it with 18" drivers on open baffles, even in the poor conditions of a hotel room. Not to the same degree as the big horn systems, but well along the path.
So what can I provide that will satisfy? A step by step guide of how to do it? I'm not sure I even know that. I can outline the technical details of how it was done when I heard it, if that's of any help. None of it is magic or voodoo, just good engineering.
Perhaps it's more in the skill of the cook, rather than the recipe or the ingredients.
The person making the claims has to provide the proof. How could it be any different?
But now there suddenly is no recipe at all? If that "magic" sound quality can be achieved then there has to be a recipe. Sound reproduction is a technical process not some kind of magic.
"ample documentation"? Where?
Markus, you are just wasting my time. Now you are on the verge of trolling. You've seen enough, but you won't dig into it.
I did offer to provide technical details of how I've seen it done, but you just resort to quips about magic.
There will never be enough proof or information for some people. I could write 100 pages and some would still not be satisfied, so why bother?
I did offer to provide technical details of how I've seen it done, but you just resort to quips about magic.
There will never be enough proof or information for some people. I could write 100 pages and some would still not be satisfied, so why bother?
There is no large room and small room spaciousness that could somehow cloud the "unique acoustic signature". There is just more or less spaciousness.
I believe stereo can't deliver any significant amount of realistic sounding spaciousness without the help of the room or additional speakers. As soon as you put a speaker in a room there will be reflections. Those reflection can add spaciousness - they don't necessarily do. Happens in your room too. The difference is that I utilize it in a controlled fashion.
Last edited:
Let's assume that you have achieved that situation where the acoustic signature of the recording dominates the signature of the listening room - at least the brain should feel like that.
What I'm not sure about is the spatial stability of that impression when you leave the exact symmetry of your stereo triangle. Under "spatial stability" I would subsume the width of the auditory scene and its location in the room, the proportions between the various phantom images and the depth of the scene.
What happens, if you leave the "sweet spot" sideways? Is it like walking around in the recorded room? Or does the room impression get "warped" or "rotated" in some way? When and where does the recorded room impression fall apart?
I know that it can be difficult to explain that in words, but hopefully you find a way to describe what happens.
Rudolf
Rudolf, I know you were asking Fank, but I'll try to add my experience here, too.
I hope that helps.
Yes, that's how it feels. As tho the room you are in has vanished to be replaced by another sonic space. It's a startling effect.
If the sweet spot is wide then no, it doesn't really feel like you are walking around the recorded room. It's more like a good 3D movie, you shift left or right and the perspective does not change, but the 3D effect is still there. Saying that, I suppose the term "Holographic" is not a good one for this type of audio. It's more 3D, or Stereo, as in the old stereoptican viewers. It can seem holographic, tho, in the way that good 3D images can.
Not really, no. At least not much. See above.
With a very good system, when you get very far off axis. With some systems I've been able to get far enough off axis that it simply didn't seem possible that the 3D space could remain. And yet it did.
I hope that helps.
No, not all difficult to explain: when the system is working optimally the "sweet spot" is rock solid, and occurs everywhere. This may seem hard to comprehend, and is quite remarkable to experience, but the sensation of it, the "reality" can't be shaken no matter where you move.What happens, if you leave the "sweet spot" sideways? Is it like walking around in the recorded room? Or does the room impression get "warped" or "rotated" in some way? When and where does the recorded room impression fall apart?
I know that it can be difficult to explain that in words, but hopefully you find a way to describe what happens.
Rudolf
In one sense it's a bit like that old chestnut of a "good" portrait painting, where the eyes follow you no matter where you go in the room, you feel that they are always looking at you.
One way of describing it is to consider a true mono recording, I've done this experiment many times: at some distance back from the speakers the image will appear past the speakers, precisely in line with where you stand relative to the 2 speakers - so if you're almost in line with the inside edge of the right speaker that's the centre of the perceived image. Then, if you move sideways between the speakers, and beyond them, at that distance well back from the line connecting the speakers, say well left of the left speaker the image will track your movements, so now the image will be well left, and beyond, the left edge of the left speaker. You can then walk towards the image, to the left of the left speaker, ending up at the plane of the front of the 2 speakers, and that image is still in front of you! The fact that a speaker is working reasonably hard just to the right of you makes no impression, you can't hear it producing the sound. Further, if you move your head over the top of that left speaker, assuming it's low enough for you to do that, the image will still stay locked in front of you, coming from behind the plane of the speakers. And you can continue to go towards the right speaker and the image will continue to track your head from behind the speakers.
If the illusion is just a touch off colour then the image can collapse into the nearest speaker when you get too close, but usually it's chalk and cheese; it's either working, or it's not.
So, you don't walk around the recorded room, it's always a certain distance away, like a mirage. It doesn't warp or rotate, and it doesn't fall apart at any point - it is quite miraculous when you first experience it.
Last edited:
sorry, I didn't mean to annoy you, maybe I was just frustrated to read these documents thinking.. will never have a room like that.
I wouldn't get fussed, lolo, I've got there via a different route from Pano, and I didn't need the big room, nor the huge, efficient speakers. It's obviously the same experience, and so it can be done with quite conventional gear, if the latter is suitably modified, enhanced, "debugged" ...sorry, I didn't mean to annoy you, maybe I was just frustrated to read these documents thinking.. will never have a room like that.
I found Pano's posts on what he did to the speakers used in those demo's and it makes 100% sense to me: creating an extremely rigid, heavy platform on which the speakers were mounted and operating. I started with B&W bookshelfs which were locked to heavy concrete stands with quite substantial mass loading on top of the speakers, and the stands spiked directly to the concrete floor through the carpet. The effect when pushing against the speakers was as if they were dozens of times heavier than they really were ...