That is correct. I can't see putting a pair in my living room! But in dedicated room it's a great setup.
I see one other potential drawback: the HRTF for the 90 degree Watson speakers is rather different from frontal sources. This might lead to audible colouration, although it may be more realistic for reverberation.
Gainphile, any comments on this from your experience?
Gainphile, any comments on this from your experience?
By the way, for close ranges (< 1.5 m or so), HRTFs differ depending on the distance of the source. The wavefront of the source is spherical, but for larger distances it approximates a plane wave (large radius sphere). This could hypothetically be a potential localisation cue for the Watsons. However, since they are time aligned with the Orions I think this effect would not be noticeable. It may be an extra factor to consider regarding colouration. And if it would be a problem, a good solution would be to simply turn the volume of the Watsons down a little 🙂
Note that Linkwitz also writes that bass output of the Watsons seems to provide a localisation cue. Since the speakers are positioned close to the ears, I suspect this might be due to propagation loss from near to far ear when bass levels differ between L and R channels.
Note that Linkwitz also writes that bass output of the Watsons seems to provide a localisation cue. Since the speakers are positioned close to the ears, I suspect this might be due to propagation loss from near to far ear when bass levels differ between L and R channels.
Here is a discussion about the optimum angle for phantom source reproduction.http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/ever...y-lateral-movement-vs-speaker-seperation.html
ScanSpeak 10F/8424G00, if I'm guessing right.
So, if the project fails, it can't be because of an inferior driver. 🙂
Rudolf
Is it any different than Toole, Sound Reproduction, page 297, fig.15.8 (b) ?
Sorry, I missed that you had already linked to the driver. 🙄
Rudolf
I made a simple passive crossover for my Watsons. They span around 2 and 1/2 octave
from 200 Hz to 1200Hz. I have Behringer equipment for time delay and response shaping but i will do the first listening tests with this passive crossover and without delay.
I will also place the Watsons in a different way. I will put them on my side, like a big headphone.
from 200 Hz to 1200Hz. I have Behringer equipment for time delay and response shaping but i will do the first listening tests with this passive crossover and without delay.
I will also place the Watsons in a different way. I will put them on my side, like a big headphone.
I'm curious.
Except for the surrounds being closer to the listener, what's the difference between the Watson setup and surround channels in DPL2 with the surrounds firing up? Those are likewise delayed, lower in level, and band-limited due to the driver position.
The subjective improvements he reports are identical to what I've noticed using DPL2 with up-firing surrounds.
Except that he isn't, since these speakers should be exactly time-aligned with the front speakers at the lister's ears 🙂
Would be interesting though to add decorrelated signals with a greater delay (20-30 ms) too, though.
Well, yes, from consideration of gross propagation delay, but not from consideration of the frequency dependent dealy due to differences in frequency response and crossover induced, nonminimum phase delays.
That's the underlying idea. The question is "what is right?" when you have two channels of stereo that were mixed over two speakers in a standard stereo triangle setup.