No big bipoles for me, sorry. They image soft and big when in synergistic spaces but not true in my opinion. Small bipoles are a different story.
Back to our main theme. More people that have been evaluating their speaker prototypes in single and stereo and what they find the most proper method in the long term and why.
Until now we seem to find that in mono its easier for getting it right and stereo to adjust the 3D element for most of the participants. More contributions are welcome.
If we design a speaker for HT or professional use and numerous non predefined positions what would be the preferable method?
Back to our main theme. More people that have been evaluating their speaker prototypes in single and stereo and what they find the most proper method in the long term and why.
Until now we seem to find that in mono its easier for getting it right and stereo to adjust the 3D element for most of the participants. More contributions are welcome.
If we design a speaker for HT or professional use and numerous non predefined positions what would be the preferable method?
Hmmm dont forget that the pair losens mutual coupling the higher you go in frequency (hence mid to low is stronger) and that the reverberation of the room is heavier in stereo. So you listen to more power response profile. So stereo is for stereo and can be masking. I have had the experience of fine tuning for stereo, and having good results in similar rooms. When fine adjusting in mono, I had more consistent results in many rooms. Did you meet such evidence too?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.