poldus said:I already have a yss901 working with analogue in/out and the physical barrier has been removed.
I am currently experimenting with the separation/angle of the stereo dipole to achieve the widest image.
I think I will build a dipole where the left and right drivers´ rims converge at the center of the box (minimum possible distance between them) and facing slightly outwards (convex baffle).
So far I´m convinced this widens the image the most.
I would like to know if this matches others´ experiences.
On a different note, I have some digital background noise that I´m trying to remove (by hit-or-miss trials since I have no training in electronics whatsoever). I just found the quietest spots on the board so far to apply external analog and digital 5V but I´m looking to improving this area.
I will soon attempt digital in/out with another chip (I bought ten from China)
I am very, very excited over my achievements so far !
The U board of the Sony is full of very noisy secondary power supplies. Best to remove them all. Also, the DAC in the YSS is very noisy, especially if you are using the 15 or 10 deg setup where you need 2 or 3 bit shift for processing overhead.
For the digital only mode I found the YSS is the easiest to interface in the YAMAHA DSP mode if your receiver supports that. I had a quick look at the docs you sent, and looks like they support it only in SW control mode, not in hardwired setup.
In that case you can try the 64fs I2s on the receiver and you can delay the data line with a shift register clocked by negBCLK.
eStatic said:
It depends. Neither the RACE not the inverse HRTF based XTCs has FR problem if you calculate the signal at the ear for different angles according to the models they use. The question is wether the model they use is correct.
In my experience inverse HRTF based XTC is much more believable than the RACE. I mean panning in RACE can match closely panning in stereo. Panning with XTC using inverse HRTF sounds much closer to that, when somebody actually moves a single source in front of you.
fcserei said:
Do you mean the attenuation that estatic is talking about is normal and should happen? Maybe I'm not udnerstanding what he means plus I'm still getting used to picking out the differences between ambiosonics, ambiophonics and other playback methods vs stereo. I've got a few different XTC cancellation VST plugins and they all seem to do different things. Part of me thinks it has to do with the stereo recording as well and how it was mic'ed or engineered.
estatic-where did you get your model of RACE?
This is the most recent one I have found that describes the techinical aspect of how RACE works. Nothing on the Choueiri XTC though. I actually prefer the Choueiri over RACE.
http://www.ambiophonics.org/files/RACE/RGRM-RACE_rev.pdf
EDIT: Just realized there is an updated impulse for the Choueiri XTC. This is fairly new since the last month or two. It would be nice if the link actually worked.
fcserei-do you have any more info on how they made the demos at ISVR? I'd like to experiment with the inverse HRTF and XTC at the same time but the info on OSD is very scarce.
durwood said:
That is correct.
durwood said:
here
http://electro-music.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15787&postorder=asc
The Choueiri XTC file exist, but the link is incorrect. The correct link should be http://www.ambiophonics.org/files/Choueiri/BACCH4096v3_46rmC2x2.wav
mjensen said:
Thanks.
Estatic, check that paper I linked. They added extra filtering compared to the diagram shown at electromusic.
Also, there was work done with this years ago at doom9.org.
Has anyone used this VST?
V.I. Stereo to 5.1
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=85446
durwood said:
Thanks, I handn't noticed that. I think the missing band exclusion filter was a missprint. It was in an earily version that had been posted. I've pointed out the problem to Howard.
The one I implemented matches the one for which you supplied a link except the LPs were at 300. I have some doubt as to which LP frequency is correct, 300 or 250 I'll check into that.
I think it would depend on how steep the filters were, these are FIR filters I assume? I wonder if this is just guesswork/trial and error or not.
BTW, someone at electro-music mentioned Ralph as coining the term "ambiophonics" and I know he called it that in his book, but I found an AES paper dated as far back as 1960 where the term was suggested and the author further went on to discuss how they currently did not have the processing power to perform such XTC cancelation, but in future it might be available. Well...the future is here.
I'm not sure if he was the first to use that term, but these concepts were actually around in the infant stages of stereo.
There are other new playback methods emerging too, but it's all rather in it's early years.
BTW, someone at electro-music mentioned Ralph as coining the term "ambiophonics" and I know he called it that in his book, but I found an AES paper dated as far back as 1960 where the term was suggested and the author further went on to discuss how they currently did not have the processing power to perform such XTC cancelation, but in future it might be available. Well...the future is here.
I'm not sure if he was the first to use that term, but these concepts were actually around in the infant stages of stereo.There are other new playback methods emerging too, but it's all rather in it's early years.
fcserei: thanks again for your help.
I would appreciate some further advice regarding the noise in analog mode:
I removed the chips before and after the yss901 analog in/out, as well as two supply regulator IC´s.
Please check in the attached file where I´m feeding the board with my external 5V supply.
Bypassing IC404 and 412 ( but keeping them on the board) is noisier than tapping before them so these have not been removed. I can´t remove them without destroying them so I would only do so if I was really positive I was not to regret the move.
With these bypassed, or if removed, the same +5V line is fed to both DVDD and AVDD. Would that be sound practice?
What about using two independent power supplies for analog and digital (I would have to lift the AVSS leg and connect one of the grounds there). Would that cure the problem?
I would appreciate some further advice regarding the noise in analog mode:
I removed the chips before and after the yss901 analog in/out, as well as two supply regulator IC´s.
Please check in the attached file where I´m feeding the board with my external 5V supply.
Bypassing IC404 and 412 ( but keeping them on the board) is noisier than tapping before them so these have not been removed. I can´t remove them without destroying them so I would only do so if I was really positive I was not to regret the move.
With these bypassed, or if removed, the same +5V line is fed to both DVDD and AVDD. Would that be sound practice?
What about using two independent power supplies for analog and digital (I would have to lift the AVSS leg and connect one of the grounds there). Would that cure the problem?
Well, I´ve answered my own questions. First I removed IC´s 404 and 412 (and destroyed them in the process) and the noise was much louder. I went for broke and lifted all DVSS legs to apply separate 5V lines to analog and digital but there is no music coming out. All I can do now is reconnect those DVSS legs and have someone tell me what I need between the analog and digital supplies that will make it work without noise.
You are right, the reflections are unwanted, so the barrier doubles as additional room treatment, which is nice.
Until now, i only tried software cancellation, and while it sounds great in the soundstage aspect, it makes the sound flat and lifeless at the same time. RACE does this to a greater extend than non recursive algorithms. I hope a physical barrier can achieve the best of both worlds.
Until now, i only tried software cancellation, and while it sounds great in the soundstage aspect, it makes the sound flat and lifeless at the same time. RACE does this to a greater extend than non recursive algorithms. I hope a physical barrier can achieve the best of both worlds.
btw... i think this wasnt posted yet, its a forum about ambiophonics: http://electro-music.com/forum/forum-164.html
ackcheng said:
In the recording room arrive the first reflections from all directions, far beyond the 60 degree angle between a normal loudspeaker setup. But its spatial distribution is the core off all spatial impression. Only available way until today is to fake it during the reproduction, as in the ambiophonics approach. Its not really the genuine soundfield, but the only way until for establishing a comparable spatial impression. Only wav for recreate the genuine sound field would be Holophony. That would be much more expensive; possibly remain all what we need the impression, not really the physically restored sound field.
H.