Uh, conventional two-speaker stereo is not that bad after all?
Well, low freq amplitude panning to ITD is about all the conventional stereo can do
However, even this it cannot do properly since the formed sound field is not a natural one (velocity vector less than unity).That is not going to satisfy us in a small room acoustic space. Also it appears that perceptionally high freqs tend to dominate.
- Elias
It's never too late to learn !
BTW, have you already grasped the Blumlein stereo patent, about amplitude panning to ITD ?
It is relevant here, because when cross talk is cancelled amplitude difference to ITD conversion does not happen !
- Elias
One has been quite devious with one's filters, so one's filters do, but other ones don't..
Well, low freq amplitude panning to ITD is about all the conventional stereo can do
That is not going to satisfy us in a small room acoustic space. Also it appears that perceptionally high freqs tend to dominate.
- Elias
Well, there's never a "natural" sound field as long as there's also a playback room. Any approach that tries to utilize the room is much more complicated and difficult to set up than simple stereo. Or why is it that you're still experimenting with different techniques?
In the end you might create a more realistic presentation with a very small number of recordings. Do it if that's what you're after but two speaker stereo is made for and in acoustically small spaces. That's a simple fact a lot of people try to ignore. Some are more successful than others.
Last edited:
Some fields are more natural than others. In a natural field one is able to turn his head without the spatial image locations changinig or jumping. In a conventional stereo triangle a small head turning causes phantom image to move and turning a little bit more causes image to jump to the speakers. Thus a sound perception experience with any system that is immune to head rotation (as well as lateral shift !) is to be considered as more natural.
Stereo triangle made for small room ??
Arent we forgetting something ? What happened to the principle of reflection free zone The first principe of bringing a stereo triangle into a small room is to treat room reflections as evil. People make considerable amount of efforts of installing room absorbers. You also do the same.
Secondly, the Blumlein stereo theory of transforming amplitude differences to ITD is not valid in an reflective small room where wavelengths are approaching distance of room reflections.
It certainly doos not sound like stereo triangle is made for a small room
Let's not forget Ambiophonics ! It is also not made for a small room per se. Here room reflections are considered as having negative effect.. Cross talk cancellation do not work optimally with room reflections etc.
A sound system for a small room.. The room must be an integral part of it. If the design starts by utilising the room as a benefit, it can be succesful.
- Elias
That's probably your personal experience. Doesn't mirror mine in such severity.
I agree that a center speaker is desirable but most of the time not practical.
Mono would satisfy that premise. But obviously two speakers deliver a superior experience or is this again some kind of conspiracy of the same evil industry that brought us multichannel?
Stereo triangle made for small room ??
I said "two speaker stereo" - and therefore most recordings - are made in and for acoustically small rooms. That's just how it is. You can probably find some control rooms that are more the size of a dubbing stage but most control rooms are rather small and cramped spaces.
You have never been to my room. And, the "first principe" is not treating room reflections as evil. This is a very naive description of what acousticians do, what reflection patterns they are looking for. You might want to have a look at Toole's book again.
Secondly, the Blumlein stereo theory of transforming amplitude differences to ITD is not valid in an reflective small room where wavelengths are approaching distance of room reflections.
It certainly doos not sound like stereo triangle is made for a small room
Well, Blumlein theory is a theory and people like Theile have shown that there's more to it.
Ambiophonics has all kinds of problems and not just benefits hence I don't consider it superior to stereo.
I wholeheartedly agree.
Thanx David
So, I take it this is an ARM based hardware kit that a PC intended algorithm can be downloaded to?
Please expand on this.....
I've followed the link and read the Wikipedia page, but I'm not really a computer guy.
They have only just been announced, aimed at schools mainly, so I don't know much about it yet. They run Linux, have a HDMI port (including audio) port, could take a USB sound card such as a Behringer UCA202. I am certainly going to get one as soon as they are available, and see if I can run Jconvolver on it.
Ubuntu Manpage: jconvolver - is a Convolution Engine for JACK using FFT-based
Last edited:
oh, by the way, the tc9's are out of stock at parts express, so i went ahead and bought the dayton amps and miniambio for my ambiopole. the drivers will be back in stock at the end of the month. i will get started on the build when the amps arrive. I'm going to build from the bottom up.
also, i have redesigned it. I'm dropping the minidsp, and using the low pass crossover in the dayton amp set to mono, 150 watts bridged in an 8 ohm load.....lowpass set to 50 hz at 18 db roll off. this should give me a -6 db at 40 hz, and will cross at -3db (butterworth) around 200 hz to the other drivers. i also cut out two rows of drivers on the low end. now there are 36 drivers at 8 ohm's, equaling an 18 inch driver for the lows. that should get it to -6 db at 40 hz. the outer drivers will be using RACE with its peq functions. they will have a 4 ohm load, also equaling an 18 inch driver in total. the other dayton amp will power these, giving 75 watts *2 in a 4 ohm load.
The amps will be daisy-chained with the miniambio after the lowpass amp and before the highpassed amp, with no highpass on RACE.
this puts the outer ambio driver centers at only 5 degrees at a distance of 10 ft, 10.5 inches apart.
I have been testing this configuration lately with RACE set up for a 60 degree spread and it sounds really good. Like conventional stereo with perfect imaging. the trick, I think is to have the listening position right against the back wall, the high frequencies bounce back to the ear and push out those pesky pinna cues further to the sides. It kind of simulates a rear ambiopole through reflections.
here is the picture of the new speaker. I'm naming it...
the "EVENT HORIZON"
click to enlarge
also, i have redesigned it. I'm dropping the minidsp, and using the low pass crossover in the dayton amp set to mono, 150 watts bridged in an 8 ohm load.....lowpass set to 50 hz at 18 db roll off. this should give me a -6 db at 40 hz, and will cross at -3db (butterworth) around 200 hz to the other drivers. i also cut out two rows of drivers on the low end. now there are 36 drivers at 8 ohm's, equaling an 18 inch driver for the lows. that should get it to -6 db at 40 hz. the outer drivers will be using RACE with its peq functions. they will have a 4 ohm load, also equaling an 18 inch driver in total. the other dayton amp will power these, giving 75 watts *2 in a 4 ohm load.
The amps will be daisy-chained with the miniambio after the lowpass amp and before the highpassed amp, with no highpass on RACE.
this puts the outer ambio driver centers at only 5 degrees at a distance of 10 ft, 10.5 inches apart.
I have been testing this configuration lately with RACE set up for a 60 degree spread and it sounds really good. Like conventional stereo with perfect imaging. the trick, I think is to have the listening position right against the back wall, the high frequencies bounce back to the ear and push out those pesky pinna cues further to the sides. It kind of simulates a rear ambiopole through reflections.
here is the picture of the new speaker. I'm naming it...
the "EVENT HORIZON"
click to enlarge
David.....
I already read what I posted.....are you saying i've answered my own question somehow?
.....oh, sorry, only the quote showed up on my pc at first.
Disregard this
Yes, please get busy on a ambio hardware kit!
I will purchase ASAP
Oh, I watched the link you posted on the BACCH thread. Thanx for that!
I already read what I posted.....are you saying i've answered my own question somehow?
.....oh, sorry, only the quote showed up on my pc at first.
Disregard this
Yes, please get busy on a ambio hardware kit!
I will purchase ASAP
Oh, I watched the link you posted on the BACCH thread. Thanx for that!
Last edited:
David.....
I already read what I posted.....are you saying i've answered my own question somehow?
.....oh, sorry, only the quote showed up on my pc at first.
Disregard this
It posted itself, I swear, before I wrote anything..
David.....
I already read what I posted.....are you saying i've answered my own question somehow?
.....oh, sorry, only the quote showed up on my pc at first.
Disregard this
Yes, please get busy on a ambio hardware kit!
I will purchase ASAP
Oh, I watched the link you posted on the BACCH thread. Thanx for that!
I am amazed that they can charge $20,000 for a tweaked filter +.
The explanation was a bit misleading as the 'flaws' in the 'ideal' filter seemed to be based on the miniscule attenuation due to the different path lengths to near and far ear. Nuff said.
Your computer has AI!
Wow! You are a great programer! Hahaha!
Check out my reply on the BACCH thread, I think I was a little harsh
Not as harsh as some comments.
Adventures in 3D Sound! - Studio 360
Yeah, no foolin'
I'm more amazed that they give out patents for these so called "inventions" across the board in the audio industry!
Example..."sure, you can design an MTM.....just don't do it with a 3rd order filter with the drivers space 1 wavelength apart!"
Just to name a well known patent
Yeah, no foolin'
I'm more amazed that they give out patents for these so called "inventions" across the board in the audio industry!
Example..."sure, you can design an MTM.....just don't do it with a 3rd order filter with the drivers space 1 wavelength apart!"
Just to name a well known patent
I done it again!!! - No text..
I failed to find his patent. Anyone got a number?
Very interesting project. I have noticed a 'real' sounding image well outside the normal sweetspot. I put it down to beamsteering around the room, but never really got to grips with it.
Be careful they do not drop MiniAmbio due to lack of demand.
What attenuation are you using?
Yeah, I'm sure they will drop it at some point.
But what do they expect? Did they think they were going to sell like hotcakes?
Ambiophonics is pretty fringe.
I'm using Steven hotto's processor for the iPad, and the neutron music player for android.
Delay is set for 22.7 microseconds, with 6db attenuation.
I know that's a lot of attenuation, but it just sounds right. Less colored and imaging is rock solid. When I use less attenuation, say 2-3db, it's a phasey mess. When I discovered moving the listening spot right against the back wall, I was surprised at how the high frequencies spread to 60 degrees as well. They are not stuck at the speakers.
Also, I'm using no lowpass on RACE. It seems that with less delay and the speakers so close together, timber doesn't change much between RACE applied and bypassing it. Except of course for the doubling of mid-base with RACE bypassed. I observe as I go down through each step of delay, that the peaks rise in frequency. by the time I get to 22.7 microseconds, the peaks must be prominent only above 10 kHz. Where they are not too noticeable.
But what do they expect? Did they think they were going to sell like hotcakes?
Ambiophonics is pretty fringe.
I'm using Steven hotto's processor for the iPad, and the neutron music player for android.
Delay is set for 22.7 microseconds, with 6db attenuation.
I know that's a lot of attenuation, but it just sounds right. Less colored and imaging is rock solid. When I use less attenuation, say 2-3db, it's a phasey mess. When I discovered moving the listening spot right against the back wall, I was surprised at how the high frequencies spread to 60 degrees as well. They are not stuck at the speakers.
Also, I'm using no lowpass on RACE. It seems that with less delay and the speakers so close together, timber doesn't change much between RACE applied and bypassing it. Except of course for the doubling of mid-base with RACE bypassed. I observe as I go down through each step of delay, that the peaks rise in frequency. by the time I get to 22.7 microseconds, the peaks must be prominent only above 10 kHz. Where they are not too noticeable.
Ok, I've been trying to find the patent too. It can't be found because there isn't one
So, I gave a bad example....oops! Sorry.
Apparently he went public before filing for a patent.
My mistake, I would hate to tarnish his name with my misinformation.
I've just read it a few times on threads and took it as fact. I never double checked because I wasn't interested in that configuration.
So, disregard what I said, I was wrong.
If you look at my avatar, I used the configuration in those speakers....but then decided to go with linkwitz-Riley 4rth order instead.
Anyway, this doesn't disprove what I said about the patent office handing out patents for so called "audio inventions" there are many other examples.
Last edited:
Ok, I listen to the demo's on this site.
I compared the pink floyd's "money" demo, to my own set up with RACE.
My set up with the speakers at 5 degrees spread with attenuation at 6db, delay set to 22.7 microseconds, sounded much better. More separation, more stable imaging, and equal in timbre to BACCH.
I know that the BACCH demo wasn't optimized.......
It doesn't say at what angle to place the speakers on the site, so I placed them from 5 degrees to 60 degrees in 5 degree increments.
The most important comparison was that RACE equaled the BACCH filter in timbre
Last edited: