Trinaural decoding equations for 3 speaker stereo matrix ? - 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 6th November 2012, 07:43 PM   #31
KSTR is offline KSTR  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
KSTR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Central Berlin, Germany
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elias View Post
It could be interesting. Is it known what order the low-high pass filters are in Trifield decoder ? I've allways assumed 1st order.
Yes, that's the basic realization that Gerzon plays with. For good reasons he says that gentle blends between the rematrixing bands is needed.

Personally I was thinking about linear phase filters because 1st order analog, while summing linphase, has 90 phase between bands, and acoustic centers of same bands are far apart (speaker-2-speaker distance) so the there could be some off-axis ill effects that might be avoidable with round kneed, gentle slope linphase filters with compact, non-ringing FIR kernels.

I'm FIR based anyway and integrating the Trifield matrixing would not cause any computational resource penalties... still waiting for my new coax drivers (4pcs) but then I'll be eager to try TriField and find out if it significantly betters the simpler Trinaural.
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th November 2012, 08:58 PM   #32
Elias is offline Elias  Finland
diyAudio Member
 
Elias's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Where you live
Here's the trinaural matrix

Click the image to open in full size.


Fullfils matrix equations:

Ls = L - 0.5*R
Rs = R - 0.5*L
Cs = 0.5*L + 0.5*R


- 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 6th November 2012, 09:33 PM   #33
diyAudio Member
 
Lynn Olson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Northern Colorado
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elias View Post
The spatial comb filtering from 3 sources is not as severe as from 2 sources, since it almost never happens all the three signals to have exact amplitude and phase to cancel, whereas with two sources cancellation happens in every wavelength of spatial shift.

I've done comb filtering perception listening tests using mono pink noise (worst possible signal) and 3 speakers are much better than 2.

Here's some of my subjective results I did just recently:
Elias Pekonen Home Page - 2 vs 3 Speaker Stereo listening tests at high frequencies


- Elias
No question that 2-speaker stereo suffers from severe comb filtering for centered images - specifically, vocalists. I sometimes wonder if that's why some recordings have the vocalist a bit off-center.

The comb filtering noticeably changes the timbral balance of the singer - but then again, just about all recordings have a final mastering on a 2-speaker playback system, and the EQ is intended for 2-speaker playback (with a secondary cross-check for single-driver lo-fi mono playback). Just guessing here, but I'd imagine that vocals sound a bit more direct and "up-front" on a symmetric 3-speaker playback system, due to the absence of comb filtering for the centered singers.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th November 2012, 11:32 AM   #34
Elias is offline Elias  Finland
diyAudio Member
 
Elias's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Where you live
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynn Olson View Post
Just guessing here, but I'd imagine that vocals sound a bit more direct and "up-front" on a symmetric 3-speaker playback system, due to the absence of comb filtering for the centered singers.
I'm not sure what "direct" and "up front" means, what based on my perceptive observations with 2 speaker stereo the singer is typically projected very close often closer than the loudspeaker distance. It sounds very unrealistic to me. With 3 speaker matrix the situation is different and the singer sounds quite a bit at further distance behind the loudspeakers which sounds much more realistic to me.

I don't know yet is this due to less comb filtering of 3 speaker stereo, or because of increased 'ambiance' due to difference side signal +/- k*(L-R) which is present at both side speakers.


- 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 7th November 2012, 03:04 PM   #35
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elias View Post
In 2 speaker stereo the phantom image is very weak, for the reason at freqs around 1 kHz there will be a phantom but at higher freqs above 6 kHz the image is split into the speakers. This happens if there is signal energy at both freq ranges.
As I've said before, doesn't happen for me and the only person I've ever heard reporting such a perception is you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elias View Post
When there is less signal energy at 1 kHz and more energy above 6kHz there is no phantom imaging and only the two speakers will be perceived.
Sounds like a constructed case. Any specific recording that would contain such signals?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elias View Post
So, overall the 2 speaker stereo does not work very well in terms of phantom imaging.
Compared to what? More speakers? Of course more speakers can "work" better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elias View Post
That is highly subjective statement
Yes, but only in internet forums I have found people that would object. All "real" people I've ever met never had the phantom imaging problems you describe.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th November 2012, 05:16 PM   #36
pos is offline pos  Europe
diyAudio Member
 
pos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Paris
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
As I've said before, doesn't happen for me and the only person I've ever heard reporting such a perception is you.
I also "suffer" from poor phantom image perception on all the stereo systems I have been listening to (which include some finely calibrated ones): it always appear to me as a diffuse area that gets even more blurry with every tiny movement of the head...
I think it has to do with comb filtering between the two speakers to which I might be "over sensitive" (takes me out of the illusion), so this trinaural approach looks tempting...
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th November 2012, 05:33 PM   #37
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
As I've said before, doesn't happen for me and the only person I've ever heard reporting such a perception is you.
Actually THX did a experiment much like Elias did, and they came to the same conclusions. This is why they strongly recommend a center speaker to handle dialog with THX approved systems. Also, if you have ever heard a pre-mixed and pre-mastered recording, vocals do not blend in very well without profound amounts of EQ. Using a dummy head microphone, THX found there was a head related cancellation between 1-4khz that made central images weak and unstable.



Quote:
Sounds like a constructed case. Any specific recording that would contain such signals?
I would say unequalized dialog or vocals



Quote:
Compared to what? More speakers? Of course more speakers can "work" better.
A hard speaker position would not have issues with vocal intelligibility like a phantom image would.



Quote:
Yes, but only in internet forums I have found people that would object. All "real" people I've ever met never had the phantom imaging problems you describe.
This is probably because they have heard the corrected equalized product, and not the pre-EQ'd product.

Elias used unequalized pink noise, so I understand his results. If I am not mistaken(and I could be), Bell Labs came to the same conclusion as Elias has
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th November 2012, 07:18 PM   #38
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Bucharest
Quote:
Originally Posted by KSTR View Post
Yes, that's the basic realization that Gerzon plays with. For good reasons he says that gentle blends between the rematrixing bands is needed.
.

Looking at some of the articles quoted in the thread, I am not sure I understand: where do 1st order low/high filters come into play? I thought matrixing was done at all frequencies, or is Trifield different ?

Are there actually 3-speakers solutions that do NOT assume that the center speaker is identical to L and R ? The approach sounds promising and I would like to test it, but not if it means another bulky loudspeaker in the middle. How about if the center would only reproduce >100Hz, would the concept still work and would it change the matrixing ?

Interesting thread, btw.
__________________
I don't believe in audio believings.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th November 2012, 07:23 PM   #39
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundtrackmixer View Post
If I am not mistaken(and I could be), Bell Labs came to the same conclusion as Elias has
If the conclusion is 3 channels/speakers is better than 2 speaker stereo, then yes. This was 80 years ago
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th November 2012, 07:59 PM   #40
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Quote:
Originally Posted by KSTR View Post
I'm FIR based anyway and integrating the Trifield matrixing would not cause any computational resource penalties... still waiting for my new coax drivers (4pcs) but then I'll be eager to try TriField and find out if it significantly betters the simpler Trinaural.
Please keep us posted. What coax are you getting?
  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
Planar & Ribbon Speaker Equations rockguitardude Planars & Exotics 11 1st June 2011 05:40 AM
Me again... matrix decoding w/ tubes? sixSixSeven Tubes / Valves 1 23rd March 2011 03:33 PM
Stereo to 5.1 hafler matrix decoder Nordic Chip Amps 14 18th January 2006 11:15 AM
decoding input guinness Car Audio 1 16th November 2004 11:22 PM
Trinaural - Anyone heard this? Bill Fitzpatrick Multi-Way 11 17th January 2003 09:17 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:21 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