Trinaural decoding equations for 3 speaker stereo matrix ? - Page 6 - 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 2012, 11:27 AM   #51
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elias View Post
A metal plate hit by a wooden stick In some music there is two metal plates hitting each others in a consecutive on-off manner
Then why is it that cymbals are amongst the instruments that generally can be localized best? They are not "split into the speakers".
The "instrument" you are talking about with "less signal energy at 1 kHz and more energy above 6kHz" is probably a steady-state test signal that doesn't resemble any real instrument.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th November 2012, 02:48 PM   #52
Rudolf is offline Rudolf  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Rudolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elias View Post
A metal plate hit by a wooden stick In some music there is two metal plates hitting each others in a consecutive on-off manner
Those small metal plates at the top end of a vibraphone or marimbaphone are at f³ (english F6), which is nearly 1.4 kHz. Even if they were f4 (which is the highest f on a standard piano), it would be 2.8 kHz only. People often grossly mistake the frequency of high notes.

Rudolf
__________________
www.dipolplus.de
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th November 2012, 03:01 PM   #53
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Elias was probably talking about a hihat. "two metal plates hitting each others in a consecutive on-off manner" would fit the description

Anyway, while Tri-something is interesting, the real question is what such an upmixing approach is supposed to do. Stereo unfortunately presents the listener with ambiguous cues and I don't think there's a benefit in presenting even more ambiguous cues over 3 speakers instead of two

Last edited by markus76; 9th November 2012 at 03:04 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th November 2012, 03:36 PM   #54
Rudolf is offline Rudolf  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Rudolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
Elias was probably talking about a hihat. "two metal plates hitting each others in a consecutive on-off manner" would fit the description
Quote:
Typical hi-hats are usually between 300-3000 Hz dominant frequencies, and can extend up to 10-17k Hz for crispness, “air” and sparkle.
__________________
www.dipolplus.de
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th November 2012, 03:48 PM   #55
Elias is offline Elias  Finland
diyAudio Member
 
Elias's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Where you live
Well,

Percussion Frequencies Part 2 – Cymbals | Easy Ear Training Online

Pedal Hi-Hat: 12kHz
"In this case the upper crispness happens to be the most prevalent. However 6kHz is competing for dominion – it was only by a fraction that 12k won"


Closed Hi-Hat: 10kHz
10kHz dominates loudly on this one.
__________________
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 2012, 03:49 PM   #56
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolf View Post
Typical hi-hats are usually between 300-3000 Hz dominant frequencies, and can extend up to 10-17k Hz for crispness, “air” and sparkle.
Exactly, hence my comment "Sounds like a constructed case."
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th November 2012, 03:51 PM   #57
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elias View Post
Well, [...]
The "clang" of cymbals is typically in the hundreds, even as low as 200Hz.
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th November 2012, 02:25 PM   #58
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Bucharest
Quote:
Originally Posted by bzfcocon View Post
Did some quick maths based on the paper.

For low freq (phi = 35 deg) you get:
C3 ~ 0.58(L+R) L3 ~ 0.78L - 0.21R (similar for R3)

For highs ((phi = 55 deg)) you get:
C3 ~ 0.40(L+R) L3 ~ 0.90L - 0.09R (similar for R3)

So you can't achieve exactly the same effect by rolling off the high freq on the center, because the phi also controls the "mix" in the L and R, but one might get away with rolling off the center ~3dB down above 5kHz and still getting a good effect, while avoiding additional high/low pass filtering in the matrix circuit.
Sooo, I gave a try to trinaural decoding, more or less as per Gerzon paper, with a phi around 45 degrees. My "implementation":
- main L and R speakers are dipoles using 6xFRS8 + Neo3PDR, crossover to bass is active
- In the crossover, I added a switchable simple circuit that does the matrixing as per Gerzon paper something like L-0.19R / R-0.19L
- for the center, I simply built another dipole panel with 4xFRS8. 2xFRS are connected in parallel and fed from L channel, the other 2xFRS8 fed from the R channel - they sum acoustically. Overall, given the different series/parallel connections of the FRS8 in the L/R/C, the center gives the acoustic sum of around 0.55(L+R), which is what the decoder should give. I measured the output to be sure. The center has no tweeter and slightly rolls off about 3dB above 5kHz, emulating the frequency dependent effect described in the paper.

Results: not to dismiss the whole thing yet, but am _not_ convinced. Having tried Ambiophonics at some point in time with the same speakers, I must say Ambiophonics did a better job.

Details:
- yes, the center image is there, stable and carved in stone no matter how you turn the head. But unfortunately there's a big "who cares" factor about this: the center image has been always dead sharp stable also without the center with my speakers ! Maybe in contrast to what some people might say about dipoles, mine have an excellent "phantom center".

- it might be that the sound stage is marginally more stable when listening off-center compared to standard stereo, but OTOH it is flatter, narrower and unconvincing(artificial) no matter where you sit compared to listening to normal stereo from the central listening point. So the trade-off is either a "rich" spatial perception in one single listening position(standard stereo setup) or a flat and weak one overall with trinaural, not a fortunate choice Spatial perception is an illusion and if the illusion is bad, then it's not really worth it IMHO.

- something weird seems to happen with the tonal balance, might be related to the combing of the rear radiation. It actually should be better with a center, but it's not, the sound is somewhat colored.

I'll do some more listening tests, including some stereo test tones. Maybe I got it wrong, maybe in needs more tweaking or maybe it simply does not work well with dipoles.

I wonder if the paper authors also used music for testing - did not find it explicitly mentioned. Because, you know, people don't listen to test tones..
__________________
I don't believe in audio believings.
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th November 2012, 09:51 PM   #59
Elias is offline Elias  Finland
diyAudio Member
 
Elias's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Where you live
Quote:
Originally Posted by bzfcocon View Post
Sooo, I gave a try to trinaural decoding, more or less as per Gerzon paper, with a phi around 45 degrees. My "implementation":
- main L and R speakers are dipoles using 6xFRS8 + Neo3PDR, crossover to bass is active
- In the crossover, I added a switchable simple circuit that does the matrixing as per Gerzon paper something like L-0.19R / R-0.19L
- for the center, I simply built another dipole panel with 4xFRS8. 2xFRS are connected in parallel and fed from L channel, the other 2xFRS8 fed from the R channel - they sum acoustically. Overall, given the different series/parallel connections of the FRS8 in the L/R/C, the center gives the acoustic sum of around 0.55(L+R), which is what the decoder should give. I measured the output to be sure. The center has no tweeter and slightly rolls off about 3dB above 5kHz, emulating the frequency dependent effect described in the paper.

Results: not to dismiss the whole thing yet, but am _not_ convinced. Having tried Ambiophonics at some point in time with the same speakers, I must say Ambiophonics did a better job.

Details:
- yes, the center image is there, stable and carved in stone no matter how you turn the head. But unfortunately there's a big "who cares" factor about this: the center image has been always dead sharp stable also without the center with my speakers ! Maybe in contrast to what some people might say about dipoles, mine have an excellent "phantom center".

- it might be that the sound stage is marginally more stable when listening off-center compared to standard stereo, but OTOH it is flatter, narrower and unconvincing(artificial) no matter where you sit compared to listening to normal stereo from the central listening point. So the trade-off is either a "rich" spatial perception in one single listening position(standard stereo setup) or a flat and weak one overall with trinaural, not a fortunate choice Spatial perception is an illusion and if the illusion is bad, then it's not really worth it IMHO.

- something weird seems to happen with the tonal balance, might be related to the combing of the rear radiation. It actually should be better with a center, but it's not, the sound is somewhat colored.

I'll do some more listening tests, including some stereo test tones. Maybe I got it wrong, maybe in needs more tweaking or maybe it simply does not work well with dipoles.

I wonder if the paper authors also used music for testing - did not find it explicitly mentioned. Because, you know, people don't listen to test tones..

Interesting results. So you tried Trifield, not Trinaural

Ambiophonics is propably hard to beat by any method, if you are willing to remain sitting in the sweet spot all the time.

Would you try Trinaural next ?

You can wire three speakers Trinaurally in a very simple way to form a matrix (abandon the input resistors in this case)

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

Click the image to open in full size.


- 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 27th November 2012, 01:54 AM   #60
Pano is online now Pano  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
Pano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Kona, Hawaii
Blog Entries: 4
Or the Dynaco method from the early 1960s
Attached Images
File Type: png dynaco-center.png (8.9 KB, 168 views)
__________________
Take the Speaker Voltage Test!
  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 06:40 AM
Me again... matrix decoding w/ tubes? sixSixSeven Tubes / Valves 1 23rd March 2011 04:33 PM
Stereo to 5.1 hafler matrix decoder Nordic Chip Amps 14 18th January 2006 12:15 PM
decoding input guinness Car Audio 1 17th November 2004 12:22 AM
Trinaural - Anyone heard this? Bill Fitzpatrick Multi-Way 11 17th January 2003 10:17 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:18 AM.


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