It could also be that your proto never reached the level of maturity to reveal its capabilities.
Last we've seen from you is this:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/200040-stereophonic-sound-single-loudspeaker-6.html#post2877529 post #252
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Yes of course it has to be my fault that none of these concepts ever worked as advertised 🙄
Like Toole said: "In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence."
Why don't you post a proper DIY plan of your super-sonic-soundbox? Per your description it should be nothing short of the best stereophonic speaker ever built. I'd like to hear what others have to say about it.
Like Toole said: "In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence."
Why don't you post a proper DIY plan of your super-sonic-soundbox? Per your description it should be nothing short of the best stereophonic speaker ever built. I'd like to hear what others have to say about it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Last edited:
Toole did mention that for him, the preferred amount of early lateral reflections is somewhat dependent on the program material. Not sure he says this in his book, but he did mention it here.
I think while considering traditional stereo triangle that it is not reasonable to expect the speakers to provide good imaging and at the same time provide optimal early reflection pattern, regardless of speaker directivity. There is simply not enough degrees of freedom for that.
It means something has to be made differently if both imaging and spaciousness are sought for.
The challenge is of course to find the optimal reflection pattern in spatial, spectral and temporal domain. It also does not help that literature does not deal with this matter much, and at best is limited to traditional stereo triangles only (in which case the possible solution is limited in the degrees of freedom from the beginning).
A lot of open minded pioneering spirit is required.
- Elias
Thanks for re-linking that text again. It should help straighten out the many false conclusions some people have drawn from quotes that were taken out of context.
My disclaimer is I cannot be held liable from your failures. Maybe you need to try harder 😀
I'd also like to hear ! But only from those people who has build and listened the same or something similar !
- Elias
I'm wondering how much of these discussions we would have if we would all have multichannel setups with decent 5.1 music material being abundantly availably (and even the norm).
Amen to that! I dont have a 5.1 system, im happy with 2.1 for DVD. A real 'music' algorithm or processor for 5.1 would most definitely convert me from 2.1
darn! Just when i thought the solution could be within the scope of my understanding, and remotely possible in ANYONES home. 😉
So, I widen my 90 degree waveguide to a 100 or 120 or 130 degrees or greater, When does it stop being a waveguide?🙂
Elias, this may be of interest to you (and for others here as well of course): AES San Francisco 2012 Paper Session P6: Spatial Audio Over Loudspeakers, specifically the paper to be presented by Adam Hill about temporal accuracy of small room low-frequency reproduction. I'm not familiar with the contents, but the abstract suggest it could be of interest.
Going back to SedEdwards posting here this is what I have a problem with. If we take the corner analogy and look at putting a slot loaded driver a distance away from the apex of the corner and even with symmetrical drivers about the center if we only consider the wave expanding out from the point fine. But now we have waves that are traveling down and back to the apex and then being reflected back towards the exit of the let's for now call it the guide. We have created a comb filter, you have to look at the distance very carefully that you have chosen from the apex and how that affect the first expanding wavefront. I think that it would not look very pretty to say the least. Now add a secondary driver at the apex and you have a pressure gradient affecting any source at the apex. Much more going on than the simple single point source than is spoken of/
No matter how people here which for it but 5.1 will never become a norm for music reproduction. Simple because, and as has been mentioned numerous times at this forum too, most music is nowadays listened via earplugs.
2 channels is what we have and 2 channels is what there will be for music.
It was about time someone dares to publish something on the temporal subject ! 😀
I also don't have the article, but certainly looks interesting.
BTW, there was also Linkwitz's presentation on Watson, too.
- Elias
Elias,
I understand what you are saying about two channel reproduction and headphones. But does that mean that there could not be two different mixes, one for two channel and another for 5.1 or 7.1 as in a movie sound track? Perhaps there could be a way to sum the multitrack to two channels and everyone could have there cake....... My concern is the stupid things that a sound engineer would do with multitrack recording and music. I remember the original surround sound and they got very carried away with that, it wasn't used as just a way to convey the room or hall effects but swirling and moving placement of sound sources. I wouldn't want to hear that going on.
I understand what you are saying about two channel reproduction and headphones. But does that mean that there could not be two different mixes, one for two channel and another for 5.1 or 7.1 as in a movie sound track? Perhaps there could be a way to sum the multitrack to two channels and everyone could have there cake....... My concern is the stupid things that a sound engineer would do with multitrack recording and music. I remember the original surround sound and they got very carried away with that, it wasn't used as just a way to convey the room or hall effects but swirling and moving placement of sound sources. I wouldn't want to hear that going on.
Yeah. Thanks for that 🙂
The most important is said here by Toole:
So, according to Toole's listening test results the following apply:
1) Recordings with decorrelated sound benefit from listening room reflections
2) Pan potted studio recordings benefit from listening room reflections
3) Only coincident Blumlein xy recordings benefit from no listening room reflections
Now, since the absolut minority of recordings are done with a single xy mic, the conclusion is for almost all the recordings there is a benefit to enhance the sound by listening room reflections ! 🙂
Because unless we do it, it sounds
- Elias
thats similar to my experience of surround, kindhornman. The only 5.1 amp i ever had wasnt great, a Technics model. I found i could only listen in Matrix mode, with no centre channel. It seemed to be the only mode that didnt add reverb to the mix. Similarly i enjoyed the old (70s?) 4 speaker matrix. Imaging seemed better than stereo, but since those early days ive ended up succumbing to just 'making do' with stereo. It seems these systems arent commercially valid enough for 'the industry' to put effort in. Unless, its HT with its wizz bang pop SFX and SFX props man. Film SFX suck
Sure can mix, why not, even for 22.2 😀 But the production will be much more expensive and thus surround music will remain a sparse niche market.
Of course those ivory tower recording engineers are not stupid but only advancing the art lol
- Elias
- Status
- Not open for further replies.