it's not a 'tickler,' that was a structure along the wall.
this is fins. mabat believes the effect comes from subdividing the throat, I thought it is acting like a rudimentary phase plug, and the inventor cinnamonrolls does not know anymore if the effect wasn't just a measurement artifact.
looking forward for
your comparative measurements!
this is fins. mabat believes the effect comes from subdividing the throat, I thought it is acting like a rudimentary phase plug, and the inventor cinnamonrolls does not know anymore if the effect wasn't just a measurement artifact.
looking forward for
your comparative measurements!
Revisited my measurement of the "fur" addition... now looking a bit closer, and using the arithmetic function in REW, I would say that there is a difference.
Zoomed in with the w and w/o measurements:
and using REW :
Trace Arithmetic A magn over B magn
A = T10deg 1m with fur Jan 18
B = T10deg 1m w/o fur Jan 18
using the diff poured into the waterfall function:
So I think there was a reason for me hearing a change after all. Just didn't look close enough..
//
Zoomed in with the w and w/o measurements:
and using REW :
Trace Arithmetic A magn over B magn
A = T10deg 1m with fur Jan 18
B = T10deg 1m w/o fur Jan 18
using the diff poured into the waterfall function:
So I think there was a reason for me hearing a change after all. Just didn't look close enough..
//
Once again inspired by the ATH thread I tested some "fins" earlier. I have now had good help in printing fins and the audible effect whit these are even greater than the paper versions - the new ones are a bit deeper and fit the curvature of the WG perfectly.
Subjective change: Instrument move backward in sound field and at the same time become more in focus. Less "gargling" signature and in general an easier listening experience. Very nice.
The depth of the fins are 3 cm.
I'm planning measurements....
//
Subjective change: Instrument move backward in sound field and at the same time become more in focus. Less "gargling" signature and in general an easier listening experience. Very nice.
The depth of the fins are 3 cm.
I'm planning measurements....
//
In my humble experience, when a sound seems to come from further away, there's usually some reflection/diffraction going on. Easily tested by introducing some virtual reflections yourself and listen to that.
If the sound seems to come from a more up-close position, there is a more direct stream (vs indirect) of sound towards you. With the ultimate being imaging taking place in your head
.
Maybe you could stuff the throat with the foam Geddes suggested. Both with and without the fins.
If the sound seems to come from a more up-close position, there is a more direct stream (vs indirect) of sound towards you. With the ultimate being imaging taking place in your head
.Maybe you could stuff the throat with the foam Geddes suggested. Both with and without the fins.
Intersting - mine, equal humble, is quite the opposite. If nothing is changed around the speaker/room but a change is introduced (filter, amp, fins etc) with the result of the soundscape being more detached from the sound producer, I almost always find the sound improved on all terms. Diffraction I associate with revealing the speaker and also somewhat harshness. Funny how different we experience these things...
I need to get some of that foam however. I tried with some other layered foam material actually, filling the 3 voids made by the fins but this was not an impovement as I heard it.
Trails and investigations continues
//
I need to get some of that foam however. I tried with some other layered foam material actually, filling the 3 voids made by the fins but this was not an impovement as I heard it.
Trails and investigations continues
//
Yeah it is very hard to communicate about the stuff without common experience, where all participants would have experienced same audible phenomenon together and then discuss about it, and get back to it and listen again and evaluate against each others descriptions and get some common understanding.
For example, posts of you two, I also have experienced phantom image sound inside head, also sound that seems far away, and think its like wesayso described, strong direct sound gets inside head, and the more room reflections contribute the further away phantom image seems to be. Both cases sound doesn't localize to speakers so its also like TNT says, while some nasty sound occasionally grabs my attention, either frequency response issue or some distortion or something, haven't figured out yet but could be related to TNT "gargling". Perhaps there is now two different audible phenomenon mixed up?
it is very easy to get confused about all information and what I'm hearing or what I'm supposed to be hearing, or what others are hearing, and so on, there is likely many things that affect and it gets confusing easily.
For example, posts of you two, I also have experienced phantom image sound inside head, also sound that seems far away, and think its like wesayso described, strong direct sound gets inside head, and the more room reflections contribute the further away phantom image seems to be. Both cases sound doesn't localize to speakers so its also like TNT says, while some nasty sound occasionally grabs my attention, either frequency response issue or some distortion or something, haven't figured out yet but could be related to TNT "gargling". Perhaps there is now two different audible phenomenon mixed up?
it is very easy to get confused about all information and what I'm hearing or what I'm supposed to be hearing, or what others are hearing, and so on, there is likely many things that affect and it gets confusing easily.
@TNT No, just when objects appear to be closer to you, as the listener, that's usually an indication that there's less reflection/diffraction happening. Something horns often excel at.
You could test that theory with Pano's Shuffler as that introduces some very early reflections, while one could simultaneously experience an improvement compared to listening without that shuffler. You'd have to be capable to run FIR files though in a convolver plus you'd need to make sure SPL levels are the same throughout that experiment.
(The original shuffler is what I talk about, as that one is closest to adding (very) early reflections. The one attached to post #3.)
@tmuikku it is no coincidence I post a link to Pano's thread, as I expect a perceived difference in balance at the ears to be the cause of improvement.
I think the devise without fins might even measure cleaner. Based on the sound being slightly more remote sounding. Measurements should be fun.
Especially the very early part of the IR.
On the other hand, expectation is a funny thing too. I've been caught off guard by that more than once.
You could test that theory with Pano's Shuffler as that introduces some very early reflections, while one could simultaneously experience an improvement compared to listening without that shuffler. You'd have to be capable to run FIR files though in a convolver plus you'd need to make sure SPL levels are the same throughout that experiment.
(The original shuffler is what I talk about, as that one is closest to adding (very) early reflections. The one attached to post #3.)
@tmuikku it is no coincidence I post a link to Pano's thread, as I expect a perceived difference in balance at the ears to be the cause of improvement.
I think the devise without fins might even measure cleaner. Based on the sound being slightly more remote sounding. Measurements should be fun.
Especially the very early part of the IR.
On the other hand, expectation is a funny thing too. I've been caught off guard by that more than once.
Last edited:
After Cinnamonrolls' plug printing experiments, I put a cross cross-sectioned paper plug, made from two business cards, into the throat of my waveguide. This sounds lazy, and yes I am, but I thought if this sort of device should have a significant and noticeable impact in general, I might as well get a hint from this poor solution. I think the sound did not improve, if any, it became the slightest bit diffuse, not in a favorable way. I removed it and preferred the clear output. It's so good without.
Plz keep in mind what this anecdotal evidence is based on, two business cards .. haha
Plz keep in mind what this anecdotal evidence is based on, two business cards .. haha
Again, this is not my experience - especially with horns - they most often diffract severely (but ATH seem ok!) with a dead sound coming out of the speaker - so distance is always = speaker, so no excellence in my book - and they often sound "close" to me.
I believe that what is going on is that simply distortion is reduced and as a consequence, the reproduced sound object is less associated with the sound producing entity - hence the detachment of the soundscape with a distancing experience. Well, its not like the whole thing moved 5 meters or so - its a tad more relaxed and free floating I would say. What happened also I realise is that the higher frequencies was slight tilted forward so that e.g, top of cymbals sounded closer to me than the lower part - now the soundscape is raised to be vertical OK and things seem to come from where they should. Thats nice It wasn't a day and night difference but you want it when you have heard it - also the 3D printer operator was present at the test and agreed on the improvement and described it in the same terms as I experienced it.
I did try the shuffler using CamillaDSP - no problems to use it. I did two filters - one for ch1 and one for ch2 and but each in the global part of the pipeline. So I basically hear the effect as described in the paper I think. Its "dryer", perhaps a tad more stable centre. But also I think the sound became a bit clinical/dead. I will keep it for some days which I prefer rather than switching back and forth.
My business card exercise, as I told previously, was slight positive so I did bet on a better implementation But I wasn't totally pleased with the highs prior to that experiment so... The WGs with the drivers are extremely resolving to the point I'm not sure I have heard such resolution before - but there is more to a system than resolving power ...
//
I believe that what is going on is that simply distortion is reduced and as a consequence, the reproduced sound object is less associated with the sound producing entity - hence the detachment of the soundscape with a distancing experience. Well, its not like the whole thing moved 5 meters or so - its a tad more relaxed and free floating I would say. What happened also I realise is that the higher frequencies was slight tilted forward so that e.g, top of cymbals sounded closer to me than the lower part - now the soundscape is raised to be vertical OK and things seem to come from where they should. Thats nice
It wasn't a day and night difference but you want it when you have heard it - also the 3D printer operator was present at the test and agreed on the improvement and described it in the same terms as I experienced it.I did try the shuffler using CamillaDSP - no problems to use it. I did two filters - one for ch1 and one for ch2 and but each in the global part of the pipeline. So I basically hear the effect as described in the paper I think. Its "dryer", perhaps a tad more stable centre. But also I think the sound became a bit clinical/dead. I will keep it for some days which I prefer rather than switching back and forth.
My business card exercise, as I told previously, was slight positive so I did bet on a better implementation
But I wasn't totally pleased with the highs prior to that experiment so... The WGs with the drivers are extremely resolving to the point I'm not sure I have heard such resolution before - but there is more to a system than resolving power ...//