Stereophonic Sound from a Single Loudspeaker - Page 4 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Multi-Way

Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 9th November 2011, 01:00 AM   #31
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by graaf View Post
I have to say that word demultiplexing is truly EPIC!
Demultiplexing is one of my top ten words of the year for 2011. Actually it came in at number 8.

  Reply With Quote
Old 9th November 2011, 08:01 AM   #32
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elias View Post
However, x = 0.5 can be done passively !
This schematic allows comparison between x = 0 (Stereolith) and x = 0.5 (vector steering) by a single switch ! (x = 0 means switch is closed)

Click the image to open in full size.

Using the switch while listening is enlightening !
- Elias
strictly speaking even when x=0 it is hardly Stereolith because in Stereolith the front speaker is high passed at 2.8 kHz

anyway - can you describe the spatial presentation of "X0.5" - nice name BTW, isn't it? :-) - vs the spatial presentation of the simplest back-to-back with direct sound blocked (the pillow-ed one)? What are the differences?
__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th November 2011, 09:25 AM   #33
Elias is offline Elias  Finland
diyAudio Member
 
Elias's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Where you live
Quote:
Originally Posted by optic View Post
Yes Michael Gerzon.. Search Google patents to find details..
I'm a big Gerzon fan, I may have read all of his puplications If someone mentions Ambisonics I start to drool



Quote:
Originally Posted by optic View Post
The LCR method i use atm is so much better than standard stereo triangle. Sweet spot is every where...... Instrument positioning is exact. I dont sit still in my den so i needed a solution that would allow me to move around. It works for me.... Thats what matters....
Propably one of the most interesting feature of Gerzon matrixes is the frequency depending decoding, where there is a smooth level shift of about 3dB around 5kHz steered between the center speaker and the side speakers. It must be due to how high frequency phantom image localisation differs from low frequency one, and because of the pinna !



Quote:
Originally Posted by optic View Post
I admit.... It takes a day to get use to the setup.... My brain was not use to having the centre channel at first.... But when i listen on my main system (standard triangle) i miss the stability the LCR setup provides... This will change.... New main system on its way..

Optic
For me the shift from conventional stereo triangle to this single speaker stereo was painless ! It was immediately apparent that something the conventional stereo triangle was lacking is strongly present now !

Of course it is not perfect yet.. My first proto is made of cardboard and 10 fullrange elements But if even that can demonstrate the potentiality, it should be the right way to go further !


- Elias
__________________
Liberate yourself from the illusion of two speaker stereo triangle
Dipole Bass vs Monopole Bass Stereophonic Sound from a Single Loudspeaker 3 Speaker Linear Stereo Matrix Wavelets
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th November 2011, 09:46 AM   #34
Elias is offline Elias  Finland
diyAudio Member
 
Elias's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Where you live
Quote:
Originally Posted by graaf View Post
so what You proposed Elias can be also seen as a kind of one-box trinaural?
Yes the same logic has occured in my mind too ! But, my equation is different for the center speaker ! Only for the x = 0.5 seems logically similar.

However, of course they are also different. For example true mono signal is reproduced by Single Speaker Stereo (SSS) from a single location (Natural !), whereas by conventional three speaker spread stereo it is reproduced from three distinctive locations (Not natural !).


Quote:
Originally Posted by graaf View Post
strictly speaking even when x=0 it is hardly Stereolith because in Stereolith the front speaker is high passed at 2.8 kHz

anyway - can you describe the spatial presentation of "X0.5" - nice name BTW, isn't it? :-) - vs the spatial presentation of the simplest back-to-back with direct sound blocked (the pillow-ed one)? What are the differences?
Yes x = 0 is not exactly the Stereolith product, but the stereo part of it should be based on the same configuration, that is the two sideways aimed L and R signals.

Some of the listening experiences are listed here:
Elias Pekonen Home Page - Stereophonic Sound from a Single Speaker

Maybe some of the biggest differences of x = 0 and x = 0.5 are:
* center image definition is better with x = 0.5
* with x = 0.5 the direct sound is no longer to be considered as an error, but is crucial for the operation (i.e. no pillow trick needed ! )
* with x = 0.5 the tonal balance is better especially in the top end, maybe because elements on all three sides.
* overall x = 0.5 works better on more records than x = 0, this means those records that do not sound good with x = 0 now sound much better with x = 0.5, and those records that sound good with x = 0 also sound good with x = 0.5. So an overall improvement !


- Elias
__________________
Liberate yourself from the illusion of two speaker stereo triangle
Dipole Bass vs Monopole Bass Stereophonic Sound from a Single Loudspeaker 3 Speaker Linear Stereo Matrix Wavelets

Last edited by Elias; 9th November 2011 at 09:49 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th November 2011, 09:55 AM   #35
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elias View Post
Maybe some of the biggest differences of x = 0 and x = 0.5 are:
* center image definition is better with x = 0.5
* with x = 0.5 the direct sound is no longer to be considered as an error, but is crucial for the operation (i.e. no pillow trick needed ! )
* with x = 0.5 the tonal balance is better especially in the top end, maybe because elements on all three sides.
* overall x = 0.5 works better on more records than x = 0, this means those records that do not sound good with x = 0 now sound much better with x = 0.5, and those records that sound good with x = 0 also sound good with x = 0.5. So an overall improvement !
- Elias
thank You Elias but the above is not an answer to my question - I am asking about differences between the X0.5 and back-to-back without front speaker playing and with direct sound blocked - as in Your previous experiments with the cardboard and a pillow
__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th November 2011, 09:56 AM   #36
CLS is offline CLS  Taiwan
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Taiwan
Hi Elias,

Thanks for sharing these

2 quesions:

1. How is the width?
2. Can you try making it a flooder (just put it on floor, flip the front driver to the top)?

  Reply With Quote
Old 9th November 2011, 10:20 AM   #37
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elias View Post
* with x = 0.5 the direct sound is no longer to be considered as an error, but is crucial for the operation (i.e. no pillow trick needed ! )
no pillow needed - OK I understand but my question is is it significantly different from the one with pillow trick and if yes - in what regards?
__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th November 2011, 11:10 AM   #38
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elias View Post
* with x = 0.5 the tonal balance is better especially in the top end, maybe because elements on all three sides.
I think tonality is the biggest issue with matrixing in a single speaker stereo concept. For example, at lower frequencies we're looking at a monople. In the x=0.5, full right/left panning case the inverse signal has a high pass filter effect on direct sound and first reflections.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th November 2011, 11:24 AM   #39
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
I think tonality is the biggest issue with matrixing in a single speaker stereo concept. For example, at lower frequencies we're looking at a monople. In the x=0.5, full right/left panning case the inverse signal has a high pass filter effect on direct sound and first reflections.
I would say that tonality is the biggest issue with matrixing

it is not a (difficult) issue in case of single box stereo concept as such without matrixing
__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th November 2011, 11:34 AM   #40
Elias is offline Elias  Finland
diyAudio Member
 
Elias's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Where you live
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
I think tonality is the biggest issue with matrixing in a single speaker stereo concept. For example, at lower frequencies we're looking at a monople. In the x=0.5, full right/left panning case the inverse signal has a high pass filter effect on direct sound and first reflections.

Let's not invent problems where there may not be real problems !

The low freq directivity pattern depends on the amplitude and phase of the stereo input signals L and R. It will shift from monopole to cardioid to dipole when introducing a phase reverse. However, in a typical stereo recording there is no phase reversals at the low freqs !

In addition, at high freqs the cabinet and element size affects the directivity more than input signal.

So, I would even say, the tonal issues can be even less serious than with a conventional widely spaced stereo triangle with gross interference field and comb filtering at the listening position !


- Elias
__________________
Liberate yourself from the illusion of two speaker stereo triangle
Dipole Bass vs Monopole Bass Stereophonic Sound from a Single Loudspeaker 3 Speaker Linear Stereo Matrix Wavelets
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Encel Stereophonic M.F.B CSM 40 amplifier Bass Man Tubes / Valves 0 6th May 2011 01:06 AM
Sound transmission loss in Loudspeaker diaphragms thadman Multi-Way 10 21st August 2009 04:40 AM
Sound card for loudspeaker measurement preiter Everything Else 8 13th August 2007 01:32 AM
Bell Stereophonic 3030 help AtomiKM Tubes / Valves 2 24th September 2006 12:37 AM
Loudspeaker construction vs sound quality josefr Multi-Way 4 11th April 2003 07:24 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:24 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2