Thanks zman!
Flaesh,
A lot of ink has been shed on the topic of the diffraction slot and the horrible sounds it produces. To be honest, I have not had a problem with it. At normal listening levels, it just doesn't seem to be that much of a problem. Also, the 2380 polars are spectacular. Not many horns/waveguides can do better. If you manage to EQ them properly, I don't find a problem with them. These were not my main horns for a long time; I moved on to the tractrix and the SEOS horns. But I always found these to be a solid performer. Maybe I have bad ears
Flaesh,
A lot of ink has been shed on the topic of the diffraction slot and the horrible sounds it produces. To be honest, I have not had a problem with it. At normal listening levels, it just doesn't seem to be that much of a problem. Also, the 2380 polars are spectacular. Not many horns/waveguides can do better. If you manage to EQ them properly, I don't find a problem with them. These were not my main horns for a long time; I moved on to the tractrix and the SEOS horns. But I always found these to be a solid performer. Maybe I have bad ears
Could it be related to the subject of this paper:
http://mariobon.com/Articoli_storici/Horns_measurements_ETF2010d.pdf
JMLC (may he rest in peace) published this quite some time ago, showing the time behaviour of several horns. All of them show delayed (strong) reflections one way or another.
I know from my own experiments late reflections, like my artificial Haas Kicker can enhance the sense of depth.
The phase shuffler was another "trick" to get a better sense of depth. It seems to me that everything that works to fill in (or hide)
the dips caused by inter aural comb filtering, a by product of Stereo, will be successful to create a sense of depth.
Even early reflections can do that up to some point. But they would blur the imaging much more than late reflections would.
Last edited:
Interesting research. Though, I'm not sure internal horn reflections are the cause of increased perception of depth. I have to say the difference is minimal but noticeable. Other than the depth of the central image, the breathing room around instruments is greater on the arrays. We are really nitpicking here.
I would think your artificial Haas Kicker would have a significant impact on depth. That is the mechanism I was thinking of: delayed strong reflections. Maybe I need to investigate the room some more.
I'd have to go with your 'delayed reflections' theory about what causes the sense of depth. I noticed a tremendous increase in depth when I added side diffusers to my setup (the diffusers catch the inward thrust from towed-in Synergy horns, and reflect it back diffused to the listening position, delayed about 13msec). You might be able to get an improvement with depth using something like Wesayso's Haas Kickers.
My simpleminded theory about why this is so is that we hear real performances by being in the same room where they are presented. But speakers firing at you from one direction don't behave like sound in your room, more like sound through an open wall. A performance has instruments with complex source sizes and directivity playing along with the room, and delayed reflections, particularly if they can be diffused in time and direction, give some of the same perception of being in the place where music is performed. Sound comes first from a location, but then arrives some significant milliseconds from many directions. It's not "accurate" but makes a more convincing illusion. Or so my simple mind sees it.
My simpleminded theory about why this is so is that we hear real performances by being in the same room where they are presented. But speakers firing at you from one direction don't behave like sound in your room, more like sound through an open wall. A performance has instruments with complex source sizes and directivity playing along with the room, and delayed reflections, particularly if they can be diffused in time and direction, give some of the same perception of being in the place where music is performed. Sound comes first from a location, but then arrives some significant milliseconds from many directions. It's not "accurate" but makes a more convincing illusion. Or so my simple mind sees it.
Here are my raw thoughts on this subject...
Though we do seem to process different frequency ranges in slightly different ways I believe the first wave front that hits our ears to be the most important.
I think we, as humans, learn to "read" comb patterns throughout our lifes to read the sound around us. What I mean by that is that the comb patterns at both ears provide us with the necessary information on where a sound is coming from, as well as it's SPL level does.
Once you have a speaker setup that creates a clear first sound wave, undisturbed by reflections off of nearby walls the sound is free from the speaker, right? Place it near a reflecting wall and our brain immediately can tell where that speaker is positioned. We don't hear the sound from the speaker and the reflection as separate events, but we do notice the change in the frequency curve caused by the combing of that reflection. Even adding/creating virtual reflections, like Pano's first raw shuffler did "glued" the sound to my speakers (except for the phantom part).
Due to the nature of stereo speakers, with the left speaker also reaching the right ear and vice versa, we can't ignore the comb pattern that fact results in at our ears. It will be a lesser effect in the near field but it still exists.
Late diffuse reflections cause a way different comb pattern by themselves than early ones. You can test that by adding sound to a perfectly straight impulse but delay that sound by ~15 ms or more and attenuated by say 10 dB. It's filling the holes of the combing we experienced at the ears in a way. Much like jim1961 showed by actual measurements in this post: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/277519-fixing-stereo-phantom-center-61.html#post4746283
I'll add an example in REW when I have more time.
As we don't really "hear" the sounds arriving within ~20 ms as separate events(*) we combine what we hear at both ears. Yet we do process different parts within that 20 ms arrival time in our brain to determine distance and direction.
Only the tonality is the sum of that entire time window. Direction is much easier to hear than the distance to the source of the sound.
(*)= unless they have way higher SPL level than the ones that already hit our ear.
Our ears probably hear in a way more crude way than we'd like to admit.
For instance: I tried to EQ my sound to counter the combing dips and peaks which (will) happen at my ears statically in advance. It did help to hear an improvement in intelligibility.
Doing the same with Pano's phase shuffler was miles ahead of that static EQ. And all that shuffler does is alter the timing of the frequencies that cause those comb patterns at our ears. This alone causes a huge impression of depth in perception. But it isn't flawless. It messes with the timing of the problem area's much like you'd get if you would step aside from the sweet spot a few inches. But together with SPL level and left/right timing it creates believable depth information in that sweet spot.
The Haas Kicker (be it virtual or created with actual diffusing panels) already does a great job for depth and is way easier to set up. This is absolutely worth it to play with. It also works over a wider sweet spot than any shuffler or cross talk algorithm I tried so far. I'd highly recommend playing with this. But be aware of the tonality changes it might bring. That's why a virtual kicker has many advantages (i.m.h.o.).
Nevertheless, it remains a very interesting subject to play with, once you have a good clean first 20 ms or so at the listening spot. We can really fool our brain much more than we usually do with 2 speakers.
I bet the guys at B&O do this kind of manipulation as well in their Beolab 90 project. They keep mentioning the left speaker compensating for the right and vice versa. Something tells me they do use cross talk compensation. Beside the obvious manipulations to 'prevent reflections' from standing out by adjusting the directivity actively. And room compensation... I'd love to hear them one day.
I hope to get you guys to play along with these experiments one of these days so we can advance stuff like this together.
I could really need a dummy head, good microphones and an anechoic room to play with, and a huge budget (lol).
Though we do seem to process different frequency ranges in slightly different ways I believe the first wave front that hits our ears to be the most important.
I think we, as humans, learn to "read" comb patterns throughout our lifes to read the sound around us. What I mean by that is that the comb patterns at both ears provide us with the necessary information on where a sound is coming from, as well as it's SPL level does.
Once you have a speaker setup that creates a clear first sound wave, undisturbed by reflections off of nearby walls the sound is free from the speaker, right? Place it near a reflecting wall and our brain immediately can tell where that speaker is positioned. We don't hear the sound from the speaker and the reflection as separate events, but we do notice the change in the frequency curve caused by the combing of that reflection. Even adding/creating virtual reflections, like Pano's first raw shuffler did "glued" the sound to my speakers (except for the phantom part).
Due to the nature of stereo speakers, with the left speaker also reaching the right ear and vice versa, we can't ignore the comb pattern that fact results in at our ears. It will be a lesser effect in the near field but it still exists.
Late diffuse reflections cause a way different comb pattern by themselves than early ones. You can test that by adding sound to a perfectly straight impulse but delay that sound by ~15 ms or more and attenuated by say 10 dB. It's filling the holes of the combing we experienced at the ears in a way. Much like jim1961 showed by actual measurements in this post: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/277519-fixing-stereo-phantom-center-61.html#post4746283
I'll add an example in REW when I have more time.
As we don't really "hear" the sounds arriving within ~20 ms as separate events(*) we combine what we hear at both ears. Yet we do process different parts within that 20 ms arrival time in our brain to determine distance and direction.
Only the tonality is the sum of that entire time window. Direction is much easier to hear than the distance to the source of the sound.
(*)= unless they have way higher SPL level than the ones that already hit our ear.
Our ears probably hear in a way more crude way than we'd like to admit.
For instance: I tried to EQ my sound to counter the combing dips and peaks which (will) happen at my ears statically in advance. It did help to hear an improvement in intelligibility.
Doing the same with Pano's phase shuffler was miles ahead of that static EQ. And all that shuffler does is alter the timing of the frequencies that cause those comb patterns at our ears. This alone causes a huge impression of depth in perception. But it isn't flawless. It messes with the timing of the problem area's much like you'd get if you would step aside from the sweet spot a few inches. But together with SPL level and left/right timing it creates believable depth information in that sweet spot.
The Haas Kicker (be it virtual or created with actual diffusing panels) already does a great job for depth and is way easier to set up. This is absolutely worth it to play with. It also works over a wider sweet spot than any shuffler or cross talk algorithm I tried so far. I'd highly recommend playing with this. But be aware of the tonality changes it might bring. That's why a virtual kicker has many advantages (i.m.h.o.).
Nevertheless, it remains a very interesting subject to play with, once you have a good clean first 20 ms or so at the listening spot. We can really fool our brain much more than we usually do with 2 speakers.
I bet the guys at B&O do this kind of manipulation as well in their Beolab 90 project. They keep mentioning the left speaker compensating for the right and vice versa. Something tells me they do use cross talk compensation. Beside the obvious manipulations to 'prevent reflections' from standing out by adjusting the directivity actively. And room compensation... I'd love to hear them one day.
I hope to get you guys to play along with these experiments one of these days so we can advance stuff like this together.
I could really need a dummy head, good microphones and an anechoic room to play with, and a huge budget (lol).
Last edited:
Wesayso,1)As we don't really "hear" the sounds arriving within ~20 ms as separate events(*) we combine what we hear at both ears. Yet we do process different parts within that 20 ms arrival time in our brain to determine distance and direction.
Only the tonality is the sum of that entire time window. Direction is much easier to hear than the distance to the source of the sound.
(*)= unless they have way higher SPL level than the ones that already hit our ear.
I hope to get you guys to play along with these experiments one of these days so we can advance stuff like this together.
I could really need a dummy head, good microphones and an anechoic room to play with, and a huge budget (lol).
1) The "time window" of perception of audio signals as separate events is based both on frequency and transient duration, most people can easily detect 10kHz "clicks" with shorter duration than 20 MS, while legatto bass lines would be hard pressed to tell two apart at over 100MS.
When coupled with directivity in the small "full range" driver rising in the HF, there is a distinct difference in the "locatability" between signals of different frequencies.
I have a Sennhieser binaural dummy head and microphones, could help you out with that, but you would still be on your own finding an anechoic room to play with a huge budget
.Listening with good headphones to the Binaural dummy head stereo microphone output is a real ear-opener, as the pinna on the dummy head emulate those on your own, allowing the stereo output to provide three-dimensional clues, you can distinctly determine the location of a sound source relative to the dummy head. The sound image is so strong it can over ride visual clues- if you hold the head at arm's length and rotate it while someone talks to you, you will swear they have moved behind you, a classic example of "baby, who you gonna believe, me, or your lying eyes" ;^) .
If you have a copy of the Iron Butterfly song "Inna Gadda Da Vida" (the 17 minute long version), take a listen to it on headphones. The drum solo was recorded with a binaural head moved and rotated around the drum set. When listened to on most loudspeakers, it sounds like the usual phase shift effects common to that era (AKA "flanging", two recordings on two tape machines flanges were alternately rubbed by hand to slow them down, creating deep comb filter effects) while listening on headphones gives the distinct (and rather trippy) impression that the drum set is moving and rotating around in the studio, or alternately that you are doing a spinning dance around the live drums- either of which is way different than any "stereo illusion" that can be achieved with typical loudspeakers.
Art
Art, I certainly do agree with your point 1).
It's one of the reasons to limit my virtual Haas Kicker solution at ~ 5 KHz or lower. Right now I cut the sides at ~3.5 KHz and mix in the phantom center at a lower level and have that crossed at ~4.5 KHz. I made sure they are diffused and not directly aimed at me. Listening to them separately give the impression of a distant sound with some music material "floating" and hard to tell where it's coming from. (I do add a bit of a reverberation tail as my room definitely doesn't have that naturally)
Of course I did try to cut them up higher but then you do hear distractions coming from those back speakers. The most acute cross talk dip and peak are at ~ 1750 Hz and ~3600 Hz in my setup.
Pretty close to what Jim1961 measured in his well treated room:
(this was a simulation with a mic and something fluffy, trying to copy one binaural ear.
So not an actual measurement at the ear and we see slightly different frequencies, but the same overall trend)
Even closer to what Toole measured from a stereo setup with an actual dummy head in a reflective room:
(pictured here beside Pano's phase shuffler)
As we were talking about depth perception there were two distinct ways I've found that work to achieve that. One is with the "Haas Kicker", the other method was with cross talk compensation. Either created digitally or with a mattress stuck to your nose.
For a believable depth in most stereo recordings the Haas Kicker could add enough sense of depth to be very pleased. I did try binaural recordings as well, like the pretty famous "barber shop" track from David Chesky. I'll definitely try Iron Butterfly. I should have that track somewhere on CD.
For a more Binaural like experience the Haas Kicker isn't going to cut it. But the cross talk compensation just might get "one" closer to that ideal. I generally focus on the majority of stereo tracks I have, but many of them have fun imaging tricks that shine with some added cross talk. I'm playing with this type of manipulation to learn a few things.
For instance: Pano's phase shuffler isn't directly related to cross talk compensation. But what it does is shift the comb patterns at both the left and right ear. This has a very interesting effect on the phantom center. The shifts at the ears are not equal, Where one ear's dip shifts down at ~1750 Hz the other ear's perceived dip moves up.
So this won't exactly help make binaural recordings shine, but it does alter perception of the center panned sounds. It also creates more sense of depth in the process.
The cross talk compensation is way harder to get right. And probably only has a real shot of working in a very small sweet spot. That, if done right, should bring the binaural sensation like listening to headphones closer. It's very hard to get it right though, and I'm not sure I want to give up global good sound for having one tiny sweet spot.
It can do marvellous things for perception though, with the right program material. I've tried a paid plugin and several FIR based tries of my own.
For a general stereo depth improvement I'd recommend to others playing with a Haas kicker. Many rewards for a relatively simple solution. Plus you can even add a reverberation tail to it to add some pleasantness/envelopment if implemented virtually.
I'm jealous of that dummy head, I'll tell you what I'd want to know if I had one....
- Are cross talk patterns at the ear different for near field setups? And if they are, what are the main differences...
- Are there any differences between speaker types when measured with a dummy head?
For instance a horn setup compared to direct radiators, and maybe even Omni speakers.
Such a dummy head could also show the differences between using a shuffler and without it. It could also show us what a (virtual or otherwise) Haas kicker does at the ears.
I'm just overly curious. I still think our brain is much more developed than our ears as a listening device. The ears are pretty crude "tools" for the most part. The fact that we have two of them plus a brain makes them pretty powerful.
This isn't me saying my ears are that bad. I know they measured pretty good last time they were checked (a year ago). It's just that most wild claims don't seem to hold up all that well.
I've experienced making a PEQ cut at some frequency and remember thinking: yes! That did it... only to find the EQ was not "selected" later on. Which still doesn't mean I don't hear well. It just means I'm perfectly capable of imagining improvements.
If you were to part with that dummy head, could I afford it?
It's one of the reasons to limit my virtual Haas Kicker solution at ~ 5 KHz or lower. Right now I cut the sides at ~3.5 KHz and mix in the phantom center at a lower level and have that crossed at ~4.5 KHz. I made sure they are diffused and not directly aimed at me. Listening to them separately give the impression of a distant sound with some music material "floating" and hard to tell where it's coming from. (I do add a bit of a reverberation tail as my room definitely doesn't have that naturally)
Of course I did try to cut them up higher but then you do hear distractions coming from those back speakers. The most acute cross talk dip and peak are at ~ 1750 Hz and ~3600 Hz in my setup.
Pretty close to what Jim1961 measured in his well treated room:
(this was a simulation with a mic and something fluffy, trying to copy one binaural ear.
So not an actual measurement at the ear and we see slightly different frequencies, but the same overall trend)
Even closer to what Toole measured from a stereo setup with an actual dummy head in a reflective room:
(pictured here beside Pano's phase shuffler)
As we were talking about depth perception there were two distinct ways I've found that work to achieve that. One is with the "Haas Kicker", the other method was with cross talk compensation. Either created digitally or with a mattress stuck to your nose.
For a believable depth in most stereo recordings the Haas Kicker could add enough sense of depth to be very pleased. I did try binaural recordings as well, like the pretty famous "barber shop" track from David Chesky. I'll definitely try Iron Butterfly. I should have that track somewhere on CD.
For a more Binaural like experience the Haas Kicker isn't going to cut it. But the cross talk compensation just might get "one" closer to that ideal. I generally focus on the majority of stereo tracks I have, but many of them have fun imaging tricks that shine with some added cross talk. I'm playing with this type of manipulation to learn a few things.
For instance: Pano's phase shuffler isn't directly related to cross talk compensation. But what it does is shift the comb patterns at both the left and right ear. This has a very interesting effect on the phantom center. The shifts at the ears are not equal, Where one ear's dip shifts down at ~1750 Hz the other ear's perceived dip moves up.
So this won't exactly help make binaural recordings shine, but it does alter perception of the center panned sounds. It also creates more sense of depth in the process.
The cross talk compensation is way harder to get right. And probably only has a real shot of working in a very small sweet spot. That, if done right, should bring the binaural sensation like listening to headphones closer. It's very hard to get it right though, and I'm not sure I want to give up global good sound for having one tiny sweet spot.
It can do marvellous things for perception though, with the right program material. I've tried a paid plugin and several FIR based tries of my own.
For a general stereo depth improvement I'd recommend to others playing with a Haas kicker. Many rewards for a relatively simple solution. Plus you can even add a reverberation tail to it to add some pleasantness/envelopment if implemented virtually.
I'm jealous of that dummy head, I'll tell you what I'd want to know if I had one....
- Are cross talk patterns at the ear different for near field setups? And if they are, what are the main differences...
- Are there any differences between speaker types when measured with a dummy head?
For instance a horn setup compared to direct radiators, and maybe even Omni speakers.
Such a dummy head could also show the differences between using a shuffler and without it. It could also show us what a (virtual or otherwise) Haas kicker does at the ears.
I'm just overly curious. I still think our brain is much more developed than our ears as a listening device. The ears are pretty crude "tools" for the most part. The fact that we have two of them plus a brain makes them pretty powerful.
This isn't me saying my ears are that bad. I know they measured pretty good last time they were checked (a year ago). It's just that most wild claims don't seem to hold up all that well.
I've experienced making a PEQ cut at some frequency and remember thinking: yes! That did it... only to find the EQ was not "selected" later on. Which still doesn't mean I don't hear well. It just means I'm perfectly capable of imagining improvements
.If you were to part with that dummy head, could I afford it?
Last edited:
Sorry, my bad, this isn't Pano's shuffler, next to a trace of Toole's published measurement, it's one of many phase shuffling variants that originated after it.
(pictured here beside Pano's phase shuffler)
The continuous red trace is a tracking of one of Toole's published measurements.
Last edited:
I'm sure there's a lot of fact in all the above, but I think one big factor about direction and depth perception that is being left out. Ears aren't microphones and not only because of shaping of pinnae. There are also neck muscles and a brain very deeply involved, which give a lot of capability to sense direction via (typically unconscious) head movements. It's not just the delayed reclections, but also the directions they come from that tell us that performers are in a room and not just some point or line speakers. Mix those delayed reflections into the main channel and the sense of envelopment doesn't change much. Even firing them from side or back speakers doesnt1seem to work nearly as well as from a large diffusor. Though I've not done much to match the response or time diffusion from diffusors into discrete ambience speakers, maybe that would give a closer result?
Good stuff from Bill, Wesayso, and Art. I visited Bill's last weekend. It was a lot of fun, especially to meet Bill. Got to hear the big speakers in his signature. As expected, they sounded excellent. Also intriguing were the diffusors. There was a real perception of depth and pinpoint imaging. Though, I would say my arrays are close, if not, even in comparison (I didn't get a chance to listen to my usual recordings on Bill's system... maybe next time).
Hope I get a chance to try Pano's shuffler and other things Wesayso and Art have pointed out. We have good and varied systems and, as Wesayo says, we should be able to get some good experiments going between us. Could be fun.
Hope I get a chance to try Pano's shuffler and other things Wesayso and Art have pointed out. We have good and varied systems and, as Wesayo says, we should be able to get some good experiments going between us. Could be fun.
I remembered an interesting "mistake" I made during an iteration of the expanding line arrays.
There was a three way digital crossover between the middle element, the outer elements, and the outermost elements. I accidentally set a delay of 8 ms (IIRC) for the two woofers near the middle element. These were operating from about 400-500 Hz to 80 Hz (again, IIRC). I could hear something was wrong in the midrange, but there was tremendous depth. It was as if the walls had melted away. Delaying the "directionless" frequencies (say below 700 Hz) had caused an increased in depth.
Higher frequencies quickly convey direction to the brain, hence the use of surround channels for bullet ricochets and so on. But if we can add strong delayed reflections filtered for lower frequencies (that do not convey direction so much), it may cause an increase in depth.
Certainly what Bill is doing with his diffusers and Wesayso is doing with his Haas kickers is similar, but filtering out the direction-conveying high frequencies might be key.
I also now remember how Pano had setup his room is similar to how Bill has set it up. He had the big Altec mid-bass horns crossing in front of the listening spot and his side walls (full of stuff, so diffusing) were far away from the listening spot. The speakers were closer to the listening spot than the side walls. This situation again creates strong, diffuse and delayed reflections, similar to how Bill has setup his room.
There was a three way digital crossover between the middle element, the outer elements, and the outermost elements. I accidentally set a delay of 8 ms (IIRC) for the two woofers near the middle element. These were operating from about 400-500 Hz to 80 Hz (again, IIRC). I could hear something was wrong in the midrange, but there was tremendous depth. It was as if the walls had melted away. Delaying the "directionless" frequencies (say below 700 Hz) had caused an increased in depth.
Higher frequencies quickly convey direction to the brain, hence the use of surround channels for bullet ricochets and so on. But if we can add strong delayed reflections filtered for lower frequencies (that do not convey direction so much), it may cause an increase in depth.
Certainly what Bill is doing with his diffusers and Wesayso is doing with his Haas kickers is similar, but filtering out the direction-conveying high frequencies might be key.
I also now remember how Pano had setup his room is similar to how Bill has set it up. He had the big Altec mid-bass horns crossing in front of the listening spot and his side walls (full of stuff, so diffusing) were far away from the listening spot. The speakers were closer to the listening spot than the side walls. This situation again creates strong, diffuse and delayed reflections, similar to how Bill has setup his room.
Wesayso,I'm jealous of that dummy head, I'll tell you what I'd want to know if I had one....
1) Are cross talk patterns at the ear different for near field setups? And if they are, what are the main differences...
2)Are there any differences between speaker types when measured with a dummy head?
For instance a horn setup compared to direct radiators, and maybe even Omni speakers.
3)I'm just overly curious. I still think our brain is much more developed than our ears as a listening device. The ears are pretty crude "tools" for the most part. The fact that we have two of them plus a brain makes them pretty powerful.
This isn't me saying my ears are that bad. I know they measured pretty good last time they were checked (a year ago). It's just that most wild claims don't seem to hold up all that well.
4)I've experienced making a PEQ cut at some frequency and remember thinking: yes! That did it... only to find the EQ was not "selected" later on. Which still doesn't mean I don't hear well. It just means I'm perfectly capable of imagining improvements
5)If you were to part with that dummy head, could I afford it?
1) The cross talk comes in from a wider angle in a near field set up, (at least the way I have mine set up) which makes it easier to detect R/L difference.
2) Definitely, the off axis speaker response interaction with the room is quite obvious, of course no more obvious than using your own ears.
3) In spite of noise induced hearing loss causing a deep "notch" around 4000 Hz in both my ears (slightly different frequencies) my spatial perception still seems pretty good. I do notice that while I used to be able to locate a dropped object by the sound it made, my accuracy at that has diminished with age, and the usual reduction in HF sensitivity above 10kHz.
4) I hate the "EQ Out" switch on sound consoles, spent far to much time twisting knobs that were out of circuit back in the day when I could detect 1/2 dB changes. I don't make that mistake much anymore, as I don't bother much with tiny EQ adjustments unless using test gear, in which case the screen will tell you instantly what's happening, or not ;^).
5) I'm sure we could work out an affordable rental, but I'd have to come up with another 10" high stand, the binaural head box is between two equipment racks under my right Tannoy..
Art
Attachments
I tried inserting a delayed copy of the main signal back into the arrays (L to L and R to R). Delay of 30 ms and -6db. Some increase in depth, but it mainly amplifies the tonal balance. Swapping the channel (copy left, delay 30 ms, reduce level -6db, add to RIGHT) results in a very pleasurable sound. Will have to experiment more. Maybe having them come from the same direction is not a good idea.
I'm intrigued by Wesayso's Haas kickers, Bill's strategically placed diffusers, and Linkwitz's Watson experiment. Some recordings are likely to be more pleasurable because of the artificial delayed reflections, but there may not be a one-size-fits-all solution.
I'm intrigued by Wesayso's Haas kickers, Bill's strategically placed diffusers, and Linkwitz's Watson experiment. Some recordings are likely to be more pleasurable because of the artificial delayed reflections, but there may not be a one-size-fits-all solution.
Last edited:
What makes you say that? Will your current room be "all that" for every genre and song?
I only used absorption panels for a reason, to get rid of as much clues of my room as possible. The Haas kicker has a double function, one is the more pleasurable sound of that delayed kick from the back (adding depth and 3D), the other is to add some ambience of a bigger (and better) room. Just a hint of it, dialling it down so I can barely hear the difference. Except my own room (and walls) disappearing.
I often read comments by people that use EQ and DSP and say: I get much better results with product "X". But now I hear how bad certain recordings are.
I take a different approach to that. Go on and on to find the middle ground that makes every recording I try shine a bit more. How would I be able to know which recording is really that bad? Sure I find some that have a drum kit that only images in the center, not having any width. Especially some 80's stuff. But generally everything from the 60's, 70's sounds excellent as well as a lot of todays productions. Luckily not everything from the 80's is bad. But there are some from the early days of digital that are not that good. I can still make them sound better. They just don't have much imaging in them, in a real sense. for instance: You don't get to hear the complete drum kit in a believable or convincing way. Older recordings usually convince more in that department, fortunately with lots of exceptions. Just a few bands I like are not that hot in the imaging department.
As long as the measurements confirm there is improvement, like my RT60 plots with the kicker look much more balanced than without, I try to find something that works on a very broad variety of songs.
There is no ideal room for every type of music. Rock concerts usually require a different setting than chamber music. But some common ground does exist to make your particular room perform better.
Late reverberant queues can create a marvellous feeling of envelopment. Something my room is never going to give me without any help. Just a hint of it is enough.
Even movies sound killer in stereo like that. And they can double as back channels for a more common movie mode.
I used small full rangers (10F) but I suppose they could use more bottom end. They play a lot softer than the arrays anyway.
Last edited:
By the way, did I say how jealous I am you got to listen to both Pano's Altec setup and Bill's Cosines?
Reading back, 30ms and 6 dB down is way louder than anything I use. I'm at ~ 20 ms and about 12 dB down from memory. I'd keep it somewhere between 15 and 25 ms.
Jim1961 in his awesome room uses 24 ms, but also added virtual sources to aid his Haas kickers and uses David Griesinger's work as a good source of info (as did I). In comparing notes we pretty much agree on the added benefits.
Look at this page, about half way he shares some MDAT's, just take a look at those for inspiration...
Reading back, 30ms and 6 dB down is way louder than anything I use. I'm at ~ 20 ms and about 12 dB down from memory. I'd keep it somewhere between 15 and 25 ms.
Jim1961 in his awesome room uses 24 ms, but also added virtual sources to aid his Haas kickers and uses David Griesinger's work as a good source of info (as did I). In comparing notes we pretty much agree on the added benefits.
Look at this page, about half way he shares some MDAT's, just take a look at those for inspiration...
Last edited:
What makes you say that? Will your current room be "all that" for every genre and song?
Good point. But then what is "right"? Whatever I say, you say, or someone else says? Unless we have a universal standard of what is right and wrong, the correct reproduction of a song is a matter of personal preference.
I consider myself lucky to have been able to listen to Pano's setup. Bill recently moved close to where I live, so I lucked out there too. I would add John Inlow's big paper mache horns to the list. And Linkwitz's Orions at Burning Amp. All great and different setups. All these experiences taught me something and helped with the understanding of what's important. I've tried to audition Geddes' speakers but it didn't work out. My dad had built his own speakers and class-A tube amps, so, we had good sound at home growing up. And then, I started building NP's class-A designs, which are also great.
Regarding the reflections, yes, much more experimentation is needed. But before that much more reading is needed
Jim obviously has been doing this for a while. His setup is amazing (do you know where he lives? ) I don't know what I'm doing right now; playing with JRiver is easy.
Last edited:
Wesayso,
To each is own, my preference is no room, which I get to mix in more often than not, most of my gigs are outdoors.
I prefer a room with as little reverberation as possible while not being overly "dead" up high compared to low.
If I want to add ambience to a recording, my preference is digital reverberation, which I can dial in with any "room", (or chamber, arena, cathedral, etc.) emulating one appropriate for the genre, beats per minute, or my feeling at the time.
Anyway, now that power has been restored after a 28 hour outage due to Matthew's visit, I have the option of listening to something other than headphones again
.Art