Just thought of this, what is the source? Does the OP own a CD player? Is this the source or is it streamed? Personally I've never heard a soundstage from anything compressed. Not saying it can't happen, I've never actually listened to anything compressed for years just to keep it simple.
Also, I've lost track a bit, is adjusting toe in the only thing the OP wants to do anymore? It seems like most everything else has been vetoed?
There has to be someone vending a set of remote controlled speaker platforms somewhere they can dial side to side from from their chair?
Also, I've lost track a bit, is adjusting toe in the only thing the OP wants to do anymore? It seems like most everything else has been vetoed?
There has to be someone vending a set of remote controlled speaker platforms somewhere they can dial side to side from from their chair?
Well, you were one of the first to respond to my original post way back with your Post #3. You even included a video showing someone installing acoustic panels in their room. But I'm afraid that may have actually backfired. I looked at the video and concluded that it was something I definitely would not want to do regardless of whether it would improve the sound in my room or not. And that is the position I have taken ever since. Consistently almost 600 posts later.
I think I made it clear shortly after those early posts that I simply do not want to do room treatments. And from my research of the subject, I am convinced that room treatments will not do nearly as much to get what I want as new speakers. Right or wrong, that is my conclusion. Which also seems to be supported by several videos, particularly one from a well-recognized expert in the field, which I referenced earlier.
Thanks for your concern, but I like the track that I'm on right now.
There's audio and then there's audio, and never the twain shall meet. You have to be a bit more bloodthirsty, classical fan, if you want improvement in your sound stage or any of it.
Like the rest of us. 😀 That's what it requires.
Like the rest of us. 😀 That's what it requires.
I have a CD player, but most of what I am listening to currently is streamed from a variety of internet radio stations.
And I definitely can hear a three-dimensional sound stage right now. But it resides entirely between the speakers and while that might be fine for a vocalist or small jazz group it is not the size I would like for a full orchestra playing a symphony. I would like it to be larger in all dimensions and expand over the front wall more. Essentially a sense of a bigger orchestra.
The only thing that has been vetoed is room treatments for now. Speaker positioning, toe-in, and even new speakers themselves are all on the table at this point.
And what exactly does that mean? You care to be specific rather than coy about it?
On your current track, i. e. between speakers and amplifiers (only), it is rather trivial that speakers are more likely to influence the sound-stage as opposed to the amplifier such that speaker : amplifier is 9 : 1, and shouldn't have taken weeks to gather. However, this also assumes that everything (else) is correct.
I pressed "Like" to wesayso's suggestions to use AVR's other channels to subwoofer drive extra effect speakers. Those can be small too and different from mains, but it requires lots of testing with positioning and dsp settings. A quick and dirty testing can be done rather easily with some random speakers that are available.
But I think CF doesn't want to have such a collection of speakers in the living room... Dipoles or omnipoles can do the same, but without dsp and tuning possibilities it gives. I am a bit doubtful about omnis, because as per my experience imaging is not as precise as with dipoles, and both are rather picky about room size and positioning.
RIP Siggi!
But I think CF doesn't want to have such a collection of speakers in the living room... Dipoles or omnipoles can do the same, but without dsp and tuning possibilities it gives. I am a bit doubtful about omnis, because as per my experience imaging is not as precise as with dipoles, and both are rather picky about room size and positioning.
RIP Siggi!
You have it backwards. “Direct” and "Pure Direct" do in fact bypass all DSP leaving only volume conrol and outputs. Check the service manual and schematics. The marketing nonsense is that anyone would actually get "pure" with those settings beacause when you bypass the DSP, what you leave is the incompensated room which is this huge lump filter that's modifying everything. At least with the DSP on, Audyssey can help reduce the impact of that room filter. So which is more "pure"? The uncompensated room or the compensated room? I've tried both, I leave Audyssey (with pro calibration ) on, and only change surround modes and stereo mode as needed.
The difference between Direct and Pure Direct is that Pure Direct also turns off the display.
Last edited:
Oh I'm never coy, amusing myself might look like that in type, though. It's not really about you.
I mean you behave like a dilettante, you're not motivated enough to get what you claim you want (something that's better than what you have). You just seem to want to think about this or that. You don't get anything in this endeavor with that.
It's diyaudio, 'Projects by fanatics, for fanatics'. You have to do it, and listen to it. Your whole approach is just silly.
If you have a cd and a cd player capable of that kind of soundstaging, you still need more to make it happen in the room than the denon, and the speakers, I'm pretty sure.
I've never had the money it takes to do it, so I just removed the zobels instead. I don't worry that the soundstage might be better at this point.
I've never had the money it takes to do it, so I just removed the zobels instead. I don't worry that the soundstage might be better at this point.
Last edited:
Yeah, I cought that too. But to be fair, streaming doesn't HAVE to be bad, it's just that most of it is somewhat less than stellar. We used to say it's Dollars per dB, now you can add Dollars per Kbps.
As the OP allows us to go a bit further into the subject I'll state my point of view, originated from lots of reading plus personal experiments.
Mr. Floyd Toole tells us that a certain level of early reflections can add envelopment, create a pleasant and wide stage if the speaker has a wide enough pattern.
But while that may be valid, there are a couple of caveats... If one looks at the listening rooms of Harman, they don't look like a more regular small living or listening room.
They are purposely build, and his "early reflections" come in later than those in a smaller room would.
What does a room do to the sound? In general, the room's answer to the speaker gives away it's size and even it's shape and possibly the position of the speakers.
If sounds that define "the stage" stick to in between the speakers a few things can cause this to happen.
The reflections that arrive at the listening position should arrive no sooner than say 6 ms to be of benefit. All queues that arrive any sooner than that, basically ruining hearing the queues that were recorded. Even 6 ms is still early (t me at least), for pop music and other recorded music it would be even more beneficial to have the first ~20 ms free of reflections to get the best out of it. At least, that's my personal preference. However, when listening to classical music, if the queues are happening a bit sooner, say at that 6 or 7 ms point, it can create a certain atmosphere that can be pleasing. It will also diffuse the pin point imaging somewhat, which is where my personal preference comes from, to have a larger reflection free (or rather reduced) zone.
What does the room treatment do, if we treat first reflections?
From personal experience I can say that it totally changes perception of things like staging and imaging. Before room treatment I experienced a stage, but it was always similar, no matter the recording being played. The size of the stage was fixed, basically.
After treatment of first reflection points things changed drastically. First thing to notice was a huge improvement in imaging and a change in imaging positions. But the rather more interesting fact was that imaging changed on a recording to recording base. No longer was the sound confined to that fixed stage. If the recording had it, the stage could be wide and/or deep. Other recordings would stay small and intimate. This from a couple of line arrays where almost every opinion on them stated they would bring a huge stage! The absorbing of early reflections had tamed them. Made them adapt to the recording. Some would be wide and large, others would be small and intimate. No change in speakers or amplifiers. Just a change of the room treatment.
I did start to miss the energy, that the untreated room had about it. Especially in orchestral work that could be a lot of fun! My back wall behind the listener is quite close, an deflections off of that wall took about 6 ms to arrive back at my ears. With that wall left untreated, a big orchestral piece would bring kind of a "live" feeling with it. That's something I started to miss after the treatments. It made me remember wise lessons that I had read during my Car audio period (talk about small listening rooms).
I added ambient channels behind the listener, not firing directly at the listener's ears, but let them reflects and diffract off of nearby objects by aiming them to the sides.
These ambient channels make up for the energy I stole from the room by absorbing the first reflections. They give queues that are timed to reflect a bigger room/space than I have. The room treatment hides the small room queues, the ambient channels bring in new (fake) queues of a larger space.
Now the recordings still determine the stage size. Small and intimate when the recording has those queues, large if the recording has that in it. But the 'live feeling' is back. A sense of envelopment, (I did add a faint reverberation effect that helps there) and the energy of being there.
This is my personal experience on this subject, I have not read it somewhere to vent it back here, I've experienced it over a long period of various stages of development as I went and added treatment etc... Much much more about that subject is put to words in my thread that has become way too long to read. Why do I mention this? Because it might answer questions about creating a large stage. It may not answer all questions nor do I claim to have all answers. But if there is one thing I would like to get across it is this: Experiment! Try a couple of things... maybe even try temporary treatment out of curiosity. I certainly did! I ran around with mirrors to find the first reflection points, added temporary absorption to find out if I could hear it... I've done countless experiments and will continue to do more. Why? Because it is fun and educational. I have read the theory, but I test it anyway. To find what I like or what I think/feel about the subject. I can recommend it to anyone with a similar interest, yet I do realize not everyone will go like crazy, like I did. I enjoy (doing) it as a learning experience.
I even tried a few different amplifiers with the help of a couple of fellow members here, I did not expect to hear (much or many) differences. There were differences though, and preferences. But none that made huge differences in stage dimensions. If any, one amp had a little more defined left/right panning on certain sound effects. The difference in bass authority was staggering though!
Mr. Floyd Toole tells us that a certain level of early reflections can add envelopment, create a pleasant and wide stage if the speaker has a wide enough pattern.
But while that may be valid, there are a couple of caveats... If one looks at the listening rooms of Harman, they don't look like a more regular small living or listening room.
They are purposely build, and his "early reflections" come in later than those in a smaller room would.
What does a room do to the sound? In general, the room's answer to the speaker gives away it's size and even it's shape and possibly the position of the speakers.
If sounds that define "the stage" stick to in between the speakers a few things can cause this to happen.
- (Too) early reflections that give away the speaker position
- Diffraction off of the speaker itself that gives away it's position
The reflections that arrive at the listening position should arrive no sooner than say 6 ms to be of benefit. All queues that arrive any sooner than that, basically ruining hearing the queues that were recorded. Even 6 ms is still early (t me at least), for pop music and other recorded music it would be even more beneficial to have the first ~20 ms free of reflections to get the best out of it. At least, that's my personal preference. However, when listening to classical music, if the queues are happening a bit sooner, say at that 6 or 7 ms point, it can create a certain atmosphere that can be pleasing. It will also diffuse the pin point imaging somewhat, which is where my personal preference comes from, to have a larger reflection free (or rather reduced) zone.
What does the room treatment do, if we treat first reflections?
From personal experience I can say that it totally changes perception of things like staging and imaging. Before room treatment I experienced a stage, but it was always similar, no matter the recording being played. The size of the stage was fixed, basically.
After treatment of first reflection points things changed drastically. First thing to notice was a huge improvement in imaging and a change in imaging positions. But the rather more interesting fact was that imaging changed on a recording to recording base. No longer was the sound confined to that fixed stage. If the recording had it, the stage could be wide and/or deep. Other recordings would stay small and intimate. This from a couple of line arrays where almost every opinion on them stated they would bring a huge stage! The absorbing of early reflections had tamed them. Made them adapt to the recording. Some would be wide and large, others would be small and intimate. No change in speakers or amplifiers. Just a change of the room treatment.
I did start to miss the energy, that the untreated room had about it. Especially in orchestral work that could be a lot of fun! My back wall behind the listener is quite close, an deflections off of that wall took about 6 ms to arrive back at my ears. With that wall left untreated, a big orchestral piece would bring kind of a "live" feeling with it. That's something I started to miss after the treatments. It made me remember wise lessons that I had read during my Car audio period (talk about small listening rooms).
I added ambient channels behind the listener, not firing directly at the listener's ears, but let them reflects and diffract off of nearby objects by aiming them to the sides.
These ambient channels make up for the energy I stole from the room by absorbing the first reflections. They give queues that are timed to reflect a bigger room/space than I have. The room treatment hides the small room queues, the ambient channels bring in new (fake) queues of a larger space.
Now the recordings still determine the stage size. Small and intimate when the recording has those queues, large if the recording has that in it. But the 'live feeling' is back. A sense of envelopment, (I did add a faint reverberation effect that helps there) and the energy of being there.
This is my personal experience on this subject, I have not read it somewhere to vent it back here, I've experienced it over a long period of various stages of development as I went and added treatment etc... Much much more about that subject is put to words in my thread that has become way too long to read. Why do I mention this? Because it might answer questions about creating a large stage. It may not answer all questions nor do I claim to have all answers. But if there is one thing I would like to get across it is this: Experiment! Try a couple of things... maybe even try temporary treatment out of curiosity. I certainly did! I ran around with mirrors to find the first reflection points, added temporary absorption to find out if I could hear it... I've done countless experiments and will continue to do more. Why? Because it is fun and educational. I have read the theory, but I test it anyway. To find what I like or what I think/feel about the subject. I can recommend it to anyone with a similar interest, yet I do realize not everyone will go like crazy, like I did. I enjoy (doing) it as a learning experience.
I even tried a few different amplifiers with the help of a couple of fellow members here, I did not expect to hear (much or many) differences. There were differences though, and preferences. But none that made huge differences in stage dimensions. If any, one amp had a little more defined left/right panning on certain sound effects. The difference in bass authority was staggering though!
Seems like a capable unit with many configurations that would apply (including ambient channels like Ronald mentioned)……..one being 9 selectable crossover freq for subs all the way up to 250hz which would be perfect for bass module. Looks like it has user adjustable EQ also.
Have you configured Audessey yet and compared on/off?
https://manuals.denon.com/avrs750h/...lename=/AVRS750H/NA/EN/pdf/AVRS750H_NA_EN.pdf
edit: also most all internet radio stations are not very good sources……..source matters! you might want to look into a streaming service thats uncompressed.(tidal,Qobuz,etc….)
Last edited:
If you got the advice you needed, why are you still in the thread? Seems like all you're here to do now is argue. If the question has been answered the mods should close the thread.
The height and depth of sound stage are (or should be) directly taken from the original recording. Headphones can be useful in distinguishing genuine depth in the recording from pan-potted monophonic sources, (which sound as if the are in your head).
The width of the sound stage is different. The sound stage resides between the speakers because, with two speakers, sounds recorded on one channel come solely from the respective speaker, whilst sounds recorded at different levels on both channels lie between them. Any two speaker system that extends the sound stage to the side of the speakers is I.M.O. faking it. The only way round this (as far as I am aware) is to use more speakers:
Four speakers equally spaced in line, with the inner pair 30 degrees apart, and with matching volume settings on all four power amps, create virtual sources approximately 60 degrees apart. The sound stage is contained between the virtual sources, and is approximately 60 degrees wide.
Note: The width of the sound stage can be adjusted by setting the level on the amps feeding the inner pair of speakers between +3dB and -3dB w.r.t. the outer pair.
Attachments
I'm not agreeing with that, as with 2 channels available and their specific phase it is quite possible to steer sound past the speakers.
It is done within recordings and yes, it can be "faked" as well, but as long as the speaker itself is diffraction free and there are no reflections messing with it,
you'll be able to notice sounds to go past the speaker width, and I certainly wouldn't call it cheating. I'd call in one of the possibilities within Stereo recordings.
It all depends on how it was recorded, for instance if there is an inverted, but softer copy in the other channel, it can go past the speaker.
This is just one example, there are more situations within Stereo where the sound can be wider than the speakers due to how it was recorded and/or mixed.
Even recorded hall ambience can make it appear wider than the speakers. But as said, the speakers need to be diffraction free and no early reflections to fight
with queues present in the recording. I'm pretty sure more people have heard this, or read about it, often described as: "the speakers disappear".
Recordings with trickery, like Q-sound (used among others on certain Pink Floyd albums) can even go a step further. I wouldn't even call that one fake.
They engineered the sound to come from where they placed it, using just 2 channels.
If one does use trickery, like compensating for cross talk, the above effects can become stronger, even within Stereo with 2 speakers.
Or one could place a mattress in front of one's nose to enhance the perception 😉. (crude/basic way to do cross talk cancellation)
Last edited:
If we consider that nowhere in acoustic literature has this speaker plan ever been recommended, and nowhere (other than here) has it ever been suggested, it raises a few questions as to why not. Without exception, direct and coherent early reflections are considered a ban thing. Difffuse reflections are another story, and some diffused reflections are actually recommended and various types of diffusers are used to make them out of coherent reflections. However, in the speaker plan above, the two extra speakers are creating direct arrivals offset in time from other direct arrivals. Even assuming that the extra speakers are operated at something other than the exact level of the primary speakers, they don't create anything that acoustic authorities consider good. If volumes are matched, as suggested, they provide the absolute worst case of early reflections; ones that are intense in level, identical or similar in response, and delayed in time. The result, fundamentally, will be severe images smearing and pronounced comb filtering. If there is a widening of apparent soundstage, and there very well could be, it will be at the expense of imagine and character. Even if the outside speakers were to be delayed to match the inside speakers in time, there would still be comb filtering at each ear that would be effectively a double notch, where stereo presents only a single notch at each ear.
Very hard to agree with the above suggestion.
Precisely. There's nothing "fake" about localizing sounds outside, above, in front of and behind speakers in a space with well controlled early reflections.
Adding more speakers to widen the soundstage is the very definition of "faking" it.
Stereophonic sound with loudspeakers is an illusion. It counts on our binaural perception (hearing and processing in brains). Because it suits so well also for heaphone listening, it has became the standard. Ambiophonics, orthoperspecta, multiway etc. are other ways to create desired illlusion.
Different speakers or different rooms will always sound different, as well every person hears different spectrum and "image"
More about this by professor David Griesinger (skip the ad of his software) http://www.davidgriesinger.com/
David Griesinger is fascinated by the relationship between mathematical science and the recording, reproduction, and perception of music. He has given lectures and papers on recording, perception, and room acoustics around the world. His current work is on the mechanisms the ear and brain use to perceive sound, and how these mechanisms are affected by the acoustics in halls, operas, and classrooms of all types. After completing his PhD in physics in 1978 on the Mössbauer effect in Zinc 67, he independently developed one of the first digital reverberation devices, later to become the Lexicon 224. A more than thirty year stint as chief scientist for Lexicon followed, leading to many products, such as the LARES reverberation enhancement system and the Logic7 surround system. He has worked as a classical music recording engineer all his life, an avocation that encourages a certain skill in listening to sound. He has also been active as a singer in various music groups, including the Boston Camerata. He is the recipient of the gold medal of the German Tonmeister Society, a fellow and silver medal recipient of the Audio Engineering Society, and a papers reviewer for the AES, ASA, and Acta Acustica.
I use this same setup in my living room and at my summer cabin. Recommended!
Different speakers or different rooms will always sound different, as well every person hears different spectrum and "image"
More about this by professor David Griesinger (skip the ad of his software) http://www.davidgriesinger.com/
David Griesinger is fascinated by the relationship between mathematical science and the recording, reproduction, and perception of music. He has given lectures and papers on recording, perception, and room acoustics around the world. His current work is on the mechanisms the ear and brain use to perceive sound, and how these mechanisms are affected by the acoustics in halls, operas, and classrooms of all types. After completing his PhD in physics in 1978 on the Mössbauer effect in Zinc 67, he independently developed one of the first digital reverberation devices, later to become the Lexicon 224. A more than thirty year stint as chief scientist for Lexicon followed, leading to many products, such as the LARES reverberation enhancement system and the Logic7 surround system. He has worked as a classical music recording engineer all his life, an avocation that encourages a certain skill in listening to sound. He has also been active as a singer in various music groups, including the Boston Camerata. He is the recipient of the gold medal of the German Tonmeister Society, a fellow and silver medal recipient of the Audio Engineering Society, and a papers reviewer for the AES, ASA, and Acta Acustica.
I use this same setup in my living room and at my summer cabin. Recommended!
Last edited: