OK, this is a subjective description, but there have also been
some listeners in my room yet, who listened for a longer time.
I have also compared e.g. my line arrays and more usual 2-way speakers
(which were non DI matched at crossover) in the same room.
I also cannot separate completely which property or contribution is from
"less correlated direct sound" and which is from "less correlated reflections"
because the bending wave speaker will always have less correlated reverberant
sound when compared to the line array or the 2-way.
The "cross behind the listening seat" setting has no sweet spot subjectively.
To aim at the listener directly will cause a sweet spot, in that there is a
"snapping in" to the image on a good recording, but the gain in accuracy of
the image is - to me - not worth the loss in other benefits.
Apparent source width is maybe a bit smaller.
The benefits of this particular design compared to other concepts is more
noticeable when using the "cross behind listener" setting IMO. You can
read the properties also as "in comparison to the other concepts in the same
room ..."
- having no sweet spot gives you the opportunity to move freely, you can move
your head and there is little change sonically. It is more like moving "in the
recorded venue" and less like "an illusion breaking down", when leaving
"perfect center". That contributes to a more relaxed kind of listening.
- the overall sound experience is rather "clear". And it is the majority of
recordings which sound this way. You are not "punished" for playing non perfect
recordings.
- there is a rather wide range of listening distances, which can be used.
You can go as closer than 2m but also to 3.5m in my rather "wet" room, it will
still sound "clear" even though the reverberant part will be pretty high.
- especially when listening to percussion and drums, the sound is less "hard" or
"harsh". The other concepts tend to exhibit a very hard sound when playing above
some limit of level in the room. Drums and percussion are more detailed in
colors, even when playing close to real levels. It takes some time to understand,
that the bending wave model is superior due to that respect. It doesn't remember you
in that negative way how loud you already are. The other concepts clearly need a
room which is less reflective and more diffuse: They need more room treatment,
even though their DI is higher at mid to high frequencies.
Remark: I do not think this is due to "bending wave design" as such, it is due to
dispersion and decorellation. There are e.g. bending wave designs, which do not have
properties significantly different from pistonic loudspeakers ...
- Vocalists and speech: Fricative consonants like "s", "f" will not cause immediate
breakdown of e.g. a centered phantom image, even if recorded a bit overpronounced.
What comes directly out of the speakers subjectively is usually what is hard paned
left or right and nothing else.
- strings are quite believable, there is some "richness, softness, completeness" which
is seldom achieved by loudspeaker reproduction at all. Some groups of instruments
are very dependent on the reverb on the recording venue presented in a believable way
and small room (listenening room) acoustics being not too obviously perceivable.
"Strings in concert hall" is something different than "strings over loudspeakers in
small room" usually. And quite often it doesn't even help if the recording is of high
quality.
That is not restricted to strings, but that is maybe where i can grasp it at best
for myself.
- the presentation is nearly always "i am there". There are mostly cues which make up
a recording venue, even in studio producions which may sound rather "dry".
There is almost always a "there" and it is different from recording to recording.
- you can listen very long without fatigue. The ability of the system to "draw you into
the scene" is very good. It is easier to me than when using the other systems, especially
on a "bad mood" day.
That "non offensive" and "non fatigueing" character has been reported by nearly all
listeners i had in my room.
My impression is clearly sounding less like "loudspeaker" under living room like conditions ...
Last edited:
If you haven't compared to 3 speaker linear matrix stereo yet, you should do it asap. That experience may change your priorities 😀
I'm not convinced yet the 'decorrelated reflections' are actually more decorrelated than with normal wide dispersion speaker. To show that you would need to actually calculate the correlation of the reflected signals. Have you done that ?
Due to providing data and suggestions i feel i am a bit in advance right now ... could you please give us
a hint how your 3 speaker linear matrix is made up ?
Are you talking about this:
http://milestech.com/aesimpre.htm
and that:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...ions-3-speaker-stereo-matrix.html#post3228125
(?)
I would say that is about deriving a 3 channel signal from a stereo source ...
while this thread is about which loudspeakers and setups to use with stereo.
Discussion concerning which loudspeaker behaviour regarding dispersion
should be preferred is not ended/solved IMO by going from "stereo" to "trinaural",
the discussion will remain: As you can use different loudspeakers with Trinaural too.
>Not suggesting a loudspeaker design or preferred acoustical behaviour remains
a "non suggestion."
I am at least suggesting something, you are free to choose whether you find those
suggestions interesting/valuable or not and also if you want make suggestions by
yourself.
Last edited:
First, you'll need 3 identical speakers.
You can wire them with a normal stereo amplifier, having a common ground, like this. (Just neglect "Single Speaker Stereo" in this case). Place the 3 speakers in front symmetrically. With the switch can return to normal 2 speaker stereo for comparison purposes.
You can wire them with a normal stereo amplifier, having a common ground, like this. (Just neglect "Single Speaker Stereo" in this case). Place the 3 speakers in front symmetrically. With the switch can return to normal 2 speaker stereo for comparison purposes.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
You may have a position that stereo means 2 speakers, but I disagree. Stereo is 2 media channels. The number of speakers is not limited. For example, I have succesfully created stereo imaging using 1 and 3 speakers 🙂
After experimenting with 1 and 3 speaker stereo systems, I can say that speaker directivity considerations are much related to trying to compensate the limitations of 2 speaker stereo triangle.
Of course the 'basic laws' of speaker directivity can be applied (like constant, smooth or whatever is the current fashion) to any number of speakers, but I think going from 2 speaker stereo to 3 speakers relaxes the directivity issues.
As long as the three speakers are identical the interaction is intentional and ensures correct matrix operation.
hi,
on the subject of "unconventional techniques........." theorically ,there is one that seems to be very effective,Optimal Source Distribution,it's optimal (as the name say) to correlate the human psychoaoustic (first important factor....from my point of view) ,and compare with the stereo triangle,it correct some (a lot of) defaults inherent to conventional system ,in itd and ild domains,thanks to that,a 3d soundstage is easier to recreate subjectively,but it's not a simple implementation...
on the subject of "unconventional techniques........." theorically ,there is one that seems to be very effective,Optimal Source Distribution,it's optimal (as the name say) to correlate the human psychoaoustic (first important factor....from my point of view) ,and compare with the stereo triangle,it correct some (a lot of) defaults inherent to conventional system ,in itd and ild domains,thanks to that,a 3d soundstage is easier to recreate subjectively,but it's not a simple implementation...
Yes, OSD, an attempt to improve stereo psychoacoustics.
I'm afraid it relies on static head situation, as it is a binaural concept with cross talk cancelling. If the sweet spot is not removed or not at least expanded considerably, it has limited value for home use, I think.
I doubt it will become popular.
I'm afraid it relies on static head situation, as it is a binaural concept with cross talk cancelling. If the sweet spot is not removed or not at least expanded considerably, it has limited value for home use, I think.
I doubt it will become popular.
yes,you're right ,the osd principle use crosstalk canceling in its definition,i'll change name.
i'll talk about Optimal Psychoacoustic Distribution,and just take in account the osd speaker implementation that better match human perceive .
psychoacoustics studies conclude that human brain is much "sensitive" to time differences in the low freq(larger span between speakers,increase itd) and much sensitive to level differences in the hi(low or no span returns level difference mainly) ,for mids it's seems that the 2 factors are of equal importance,this is certainly one of the reasons why the indirect firing systems (...as trinaural 😉) have a wider perceived soundstage,with direct firing speaker the level difference dominate(is easier to perceived) the time difference,in sense of time and phase,it's not the case when one not facing the speaker.
that said,a implementation of speaker like osd with up firing mid should work as a soundstage enhancer.
about the popularity of such a system (OPD,not OSD),just look at the docks for pod,a lot of them are uses the same basics ,indirect firing and "stereo dipole" as stereo enhancer.
i'll talk about Optimal Psychoacoustic Distribution,and just take in account the osd speaker implementation that better match human perceive .
psychoacoustics studies conclude that human brain is much "sensitive" to time differences in the low freq(larger span between speakers,increase itd) and much sensitive to level differences in the hi(low or no span returns level difference mainly) ,for mids it's seems that the 2 factors are of equal importance,this is certainly one of the reasons why the indirect firing systems (...as trinaural 😉) have a wider perceived soundstage,with direct firing speaker the level difference dominate(is easier to perceived) the time difference,in sense of time and phase,it's not the case when one not facing the speaker.
that said,a implementation of speaker like osd with up firing mid should work as a soundstage enhancer.
about the popularity of such a system (OPD,not OSD),just look at the docks for pod,a lot of them are uses the same basics ,indirect firing and "stereo dipole" as stereo enhancer.
Most of these "docks" were made with the simple thought (straight from the marketing dept none the less) make it look cute, small, short and wide akin to yesterday's boombox's minus the radio/cassette/CD. Which leaves us with the problem of where to place drivers adequate to get the job done. Not an easy task. Only an after thought as to how this applies to psychoacoustics, with very few exceptions. We've own a couple of these exceptions.
One made by Panasonic in the mid '70's sounded great. Little bass and marginal seperation at any real distance. Stand there while changing stations ie within a meter and sounded all encompasing. A younger sister would always take to the beach, until one day she wasn't paying attention and the tide ate it 🙄
In a Finnish magazine in 1984 there was a DIY project using a plurality of elements in each freq band. Those could resemble some function of decorrelating the off-axis signals. Elements are placed in a quite random manner, like blasted by a shotgun.
It says in the pic: "controlled directivity"
Is this the way to mimic "bending wave" directivity and decorrelation of off-axis signal by using conventional dynamic drivers ?
It says in the pic: "controlled directivity"
Is this the way to mimic "bending wave" directivity and decorrelation of off-axis signal by using conventional dynamic drivers ?
Attachments
I have a diffusorless fullrange driver with 180° dispersion up to 20 kHz running in flooder position now and there is absolutely nothing special to say about it.
A flooder in the original sense of the topic fools the human ear by doing things that don't appear in nature. Most of this thread goes far too much in the textbook copy/paste direction for my taste, with the majority of the persons contributing to this thread even favouring "ideal" setups, totally OT in my eyes. Experiments and test reports? Hardly anything.
A flooder in the original sense of the topic fools the human ear by doing things that don't appear in nature. Most of this thread goes far too much in the textbook copy/paste direction for my taste, with the majority of the persons contributing to this thread even favouring "ideal" setups, totally OT in my eyes. Experiments and test reports? Hardly anything.
Pictures of such a speaker that is fullrange with a perfect dispersion
to 20k would be awesome! Test results and setup conditions would also help greatly, tia
I'm not sure whether it would be wise to post pictures. Measurements of a very early stage with severe resonance problems can be found in the "building one's own diaphragm" thread. I didn't store the measurements of my current prototype. When I have a second version with large diameter voice coil running I'll post measurements again.
very impressive! but what mean diffusorless?
other point,i talk about interaural time difference and interaural level difference in the midband of the audiospectrum,not about flooder
I see a driver that's 30dB down at 180º from the peak or almost 20dB down from the 1kHz level. EQ and that midrange peak won't help in forming an opinion of if this works or not, IMHO
Would like to see some pics of your driver none the less. If not specifically for this subject, just to see what you have going on 🙂
Would like to see some pics of your driver none the less. If not specifically for this subject, just to see what you have going on 🙂
it certainly increase directivity in the low and hi mid ,because of speaker setting
- Status
- Not open for further replies.