Considering the above I'm beginning to get hints why an approach called 'flooder' could have any change of stereophonic imaging. Who could have thought.. 🙄
- Elias
- Elias
Hooked up the TIE fighter to my AVR together with 2 subs and ran Audyssey MultEQ. Pretty amazing for a speaker made from cardboard. The Stereosphere™ principle is working.
Elias, what can I say? 😀
I will only add a short quote from Albert Einstein: If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it 😎
I have to say that You - both of You, Markus included, are doing very fine job
I am impressed and grateful
that was brilliant move Markus, those tests conclusively falsify the hypothesis that back-to-back operation relies on the presence of ITD cues in recording!
that is really
it's truly quod erat demonstrandum 😀
funny thing is that I have been writing about this craziness for years 😎
I am especially happy as Markus' experiment and Your listening tests seem to corroborate my initial hypothesis that back-to-back operation doesn't rely on the type of stereophonic cues - both intensity and time can work
certainly not Toole's... right Markus? 😉
AMEN! 😎
blessed are those who dare to try 😉 audaces fortuna iuvat!
to put it shortly - what is the value of such defined fidelity? for a human person, music lover seeking enjoyment in music at home?
such abstract, technical concept of Hi-Fidelity I consider to be a very unfortunate deviation from the original concept
it was H.A. Hartley who "invented the phrase "high fidelity" in 1927 to denote a type of sound reproduction that might be taken rather seriously by a music lover"
He understood it as realistic high fidelity, high fidelity = realism of sound reproduction
fidelity to the human experience of the real thing
more on the subject:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/121385-loudspeakers-room-system-55.html#post2096961
really? don't You think that with this conclusion You are a bit too fast? 😉
as for verifications - read the whole thread not just couple of last pages and please - don't treat my verifications as dependent, hope I am not asking too much 🙂
best regards,
graaf
Attachments
yes who could have thought 😉 while a few of those that dared to try it have already heard it
please let's continue the flooder topic in the original thread 🙂
best,
graar
Markus,
Did you notice the distance dependency on imaging with the stereolith or the cardboard?
How is your layout?
My room is 3.5*7 m. Cardboard is placed in a longitudal centerline about 1 m from the front wall. I listened at 2 - 5 m from the box.
Your demo samples don't image at 2m distance. BUT they image at 3-5 m distance!
Time to open the 'book' or continue the tests? 😀
- Elias
Did you notice the distance dependency on imaging with the stereolith or the cardboard?
How is your layout?
My room is 3.5*7 m. Cardboard is placed in a longitudal centerline about 1 m from the front wall. I listened at 2 - 5 m from the box.
Your demo samples don't image at 2m distance. BUT they image at 3-5 m distance!
Time to open the 'book' or continue the tests? 😀
- Elias
I don't have the album so I have to settle to youtube.
I like ! Very nice with the cardboard.
I like ! Very nice with the cardboard.
great! 😀 what is exactly pretty amazing about it?
Do You mean AVR + an upmixing algorithm?
Could You be a little bit more specific? Which conlusions exactly?
What is more to it?
which book?
I would also like to know 🙂
great observation! This explains why I never experienced such a failure of back-to-back box - I simply never listened to it closer than about 3.5 m 😀
Yet another breakthrough !
You must get rid of the direct sound for the principle to work correctly. I blocked the direct sound by a soffa pillow, and the distance dependency on imaging is no more ! Every distance is good now.
Now I'm listening to this:
Look at the pic. Is this high fidelity?!
😀
Should I wake up from this dream and not to remember this.. I almost cannot believe this is happening. This is totally absurd 😎
- Elias
You must get rid of the direct sound for the principle to work correctly. I blocked the direct sound by a soffa pillow, and the distance dependency on imaging is no more ! Every distance is good now.
Now I'm listening to this:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Look at the pic. Is this high fidelity?!
😀Should I wake up from this dream and not to remember this.. I almost cannot believe this is happening. This is totally absurd 😎
- Elias
Yet another breakthrough !
You must get rid of the direct sound for the principle to work correctly. I blocked the direct sound by a soffa pillow, and the distance dependency on imaging is no more ! Every distance is good now.
Now I'm listening to this:
Look at the pic. Is this high fidelity?!
Should I wake up from this dream and not to remember this.. I almost cannot believe this is happening. This is totally absurd 😎
- Elias
yeah!
and in fact it is still the old reinventing the wheel 😀
take a look at this:
AES E-Library A Compact, Single-Cabinet, Stereophonic Speaker System
behind this concept no crazy pseudoscientists oh no! just old school engineers, open-minded, Victor Brociner among them
best!
graaf
Markus,
Try adding stereo reverb for the sound samples you posted today, and listen with stereolith or cardboard.
There will be a new revelation waiting !
- Elias
Try adding stereo reverb for the sound samples you posted today, and listen with stereolith or cardboard.
There will be a new revelation waiting !
- Elias
Yes, my regular trademark 😎
Great find from the AES. Looks like the developments in audio has been halted since 1950's 🙄
Those were the days when computer simulations were not available and everything had to be tried by hand. Also not many books on the subject available at that time, so also no prejudices on what works and what do not.
Of course nowadays everything is better 🙄 We have computers and a lot of prejudices 😀 Everything is too easy by a click of a mouse. No more true pioneering spirit.
- Elias
Already did that with mixed results. I also found a way to position phantom sources. Have to check how stable this is.
I haven't yet tried the sound samples Markus delivered, but I remember a discussion between Elias and me from last year, where we could not find a common view on hearing a phantom center with the head turned.
In the light of todays discussion I like to talk about my own system which has delivered that "phantom with turned head" for quite a while. It is a dipole system with the back firing into the room corners:
As the vector arrows show, there is a strong component of sound firing to the side walls in "stereolith fashion". The difference to many other systems is, that I insist on having the (almost) same response curve in all directions (not level, but frequency distribution). So - as in stereolith - my reflections from the side walls are not dull caricatures of the original, but have the same frequency content - only at a lesser level. Omnis tend to have the same sort of frequency congruent reflections.
Could it be that you don't necessarily need that stereolith construction, but only some decent polar response of your system, including a nice share of ipsilateral and contralateral reflections?
Rudolf
In the light of todays discussion I like to talk about my own system which has delivered that "phantom with turned head" for quite a while. It is a dipole system with the back firing into the room corners:
As the vector arrows show, there is a strong component of sound firing to the side walls in "stereolith fashion". The difference to many other systems is, that I insist on having the (almost) same response curve in all directions (not level, but frequency distribution). So - as in stereolith - my reflections from the side walls are not dull caricatures of the original, but have the same frequency content - only at a lesser level. Omnis tend to have the same sort of frequency congruent reflections.
Could it be that you don't necessarily need that stereolith construction, but only some decent polar response of your system, including a nice share of ipsilateral and contralateral reflections?
Rudolf
