milkshake,
I'd be interested in hearing your recordings. But I'd like to request a few additional/differerent contents --
1) delays on the order of 20msec or so (not just a few --- Haas relevant time delays)
2) delays that can be made to come from a different direction (so, multichannel, maybe 4.0?). I don't think there is any question that the directions that sound reflections come from is a relevant variable, is there? In my personal (and obviously, subjective for now) experience, this makes the difference between being in a large doorway to a room where music is playing; or being in the room where music is playing.
I'd be interested in hearing your recordings. But I'd like to request a few additional/differerent contents --
1) delays on the order of 20msec or so (not just a few --- Haas relevant time delays)
2) delays that can be made to come from a different direction (so, multichannel, maybe 4.0?). I don't think there is any question that the directions that sound reflections come from is a relevant variable, is there? In my personal (and obviously, subjective for now) experience, this makes the difference between being in a large doorway to a room where music is playing; or being in the room where music is playing.
I would disagree. One side of a room in my home is partially glass and when the curtains are open, you can easily hear 'the glass' while listening to music......the HF response increases in the same side channel.
I'd have to agree with this. But the frequency spectrum coming from behind is important too. I limit my fake diffused queues (or Haas kicker) from behind to ~3.5 KHz with a 12 dB crossover as when I play them any higher I do notice queues coming from behind.
As I use a L-R and R-L mix with a hint of center content mixed in, I can change the center content from behind to cut off at a higher frequency without being able to notice it as a separate sound source. The center content is lower in SPL, if I don't do that my sweet spot is limited to a small spot. The sweet spot is more of a sweet area this way. Obviously I tried a lot of different mixes, the (L-R) and (R-L) plus a bit of center was a keeper.
I've played around with such a 4.0 mix extensively, created from the original stereo mix. In my opinion if it is diffused it works best. Add a reverb tail and you get more of that sense of envelopment. Too much and you notice it, just a little and your room's boundaries disappear. It was one of the most fun experiments I have done. I do wish I could use a lower cut off but the size of the ambient speakers limits the bottom end extension to about ~120 Hz. If you read Linkwitz's ambient story he runs the back end down to 60 Hz.
Separately recorded frequency spectrum of main and ambient speakers at the listening position.
Obviously no low pass crossover used here on the ambient channels as this was a session to measure and adjust it's content.
Don't mind the SPL level, that was adjusted afterwards, it's about ~10 dB below the mains.
(you can see it took me a couple of tries to get it right (lol))
It became a permanent addition to my stereo listening setup and doubles as surrounds when playing movies.
Last edited:
I think he is correct. This can be shown by using a headphone and listen to 3D recording. No conventionsl speakers would be able to do that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUDTlvagjJA and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecOrBqQAuXg
Of course many are trying to reproduce 3d sound (not "illusion") such as princeton's 3d3a but they would not be something conventional.
But that is not likely an effect of increasing or decreasing the reverberant field which is largely a function of total absorption and room volume. Early reflections and secondary sound sources are both different from reverberation and can impart a sonic signature of their own. Again I think the terminology in this thread is causing a few problems...
Last edited:
When was stereo ever stated as being anything more than an illusion? Below 700Hz there is a chance to recreate sound pressure differences between the ears that have a certain fidelity to sound sources in real space in front of a listener. Beyond that stereo is not and never was about the recreation of a recording as if one were present at that location.
Hi Pano,
i guess it might be "diffusive". (Maybe even on different scales/wavelenghts, i truly would like to see/experience that lava cave ...)
SL gave rise to some misunderstandings - at least in german translations - in that his statements are (mis-?) interpreted as the early (e.g. ipsilateral) reflections (of the stereo speakers) in the listening room should present sound as "true copies" (just reduced in level) of the direct sound.
This is IMO a misleading interpretation of what makes a (HiFi-) listening room (close to ...) "auditively disappear" even though not (in any way) being a "dead" ore even "semianechoic" room.
(If this post is not comprehensible entirely , certain sorts/amounts of german - bavarian to be exactly - beer might be the cause)
Cheers !
Last edited:
Yes, from picture linked the cave probaly was highly diffusive with no parallel walls.
Must have been a very interesting listening place.
One of my friend in Paris had a studio (in a flat) and the control room was fully loaded with lot of things: hardware (obviously) but furniture, trinkets, etc,etc... First time i was there i found the place funny and talked about that with him, he had a grin talked to me about the nescessity of entropy for nice diffusion.
Diffusive, yes. Thanks. 
I said reflective, but was thinking of diffuse reflections. The texture was varied and random across many scales, from little spikes the size of a pencil point to smooth blobs the size of a grapefruit to rough boulders the size an armchair. Quite random looking. And a very matte sound, what I'd call hypo-echoic. Not what you expect in cave.
Not only was it fun to listen in, it taught me a lot about room acoustics. Wish I had more time to study it. I can say, if I ever have a really big budget to build a custom listening room, there will be a lot of lava rock in it.
I said reflective, but was thinking of diffuse reflections. The texture was varied and random across many scales, from little spikes the size of a pencil point to smooth blobs the size of a grapefruit to rough boulders the size an armchair. Quite random looking. And a very matte sound, what I'd call hypo-echoic. Not what you expect in cave.Not only was it fun to listen in, it taught me a lot about room acoustics. Wish I had more time to study it. I can say, if I ever have a really big budget to build a custom listening room, there will be a lot of lava rock in it.
Interesting, that seems a little low. But the ear is sensitive there, so I can understand the limit.
There are some interesting ways to derive the ambient channels, but I've never heard of center being mixed back in. I used to have one of those old Yamaha DSP-100 four channel ambient sound processors. As nice as all the presets were, if not played too loud, it was always the simple Dolby Surround settings I'd end up using. I.E. ambience derived from the actual signal. That's what sounded the most natural.
Well someone opened a can of worms. I have heard the Orion and Lx at least a half a dozen times at Rocky Mountain Audio Fest and at a fellows home here in Colorado and have always came away with the conclusion of what's the big deal. For a highly documented and thought out speaker it sounds no different from any other speaker when it comes to lessening room interaction. At my audio society friends home the speaker had good sound quality and measured fine. However Linkwitz claims its the speaker thats the problem and I still believe it's both.
I don't see some of the basic problems that exist ever logically explained. If we are to take a typical orchestral recording with two mics there can be no way to insert the spatial information of the venue unless there are two stereo mics in the back of the ensemble. With a dipole or bipole speaker the information coming off the front of the speaker is played off the back driver(firing the same info forward and back) this is only an approximation of the reverent energy in the hall.
Second, when I ran a frequency sweep the speaker exhibited a slight mushroom cloud in the polar response, better than a lot of speakers but still it was there.
Lastly with an open backed speaker there are going to be major cancellations at the half wavelengths unless equalization is in use. For a speaker this documented in the design phase only to be addressed as-can't be measured with conventional measurements-the point becomes moot. Also for a speaker with this amount of surface area it is very limited in low end response.
When I was at RMAF the second year the Orion was there I asked Linkwitz if I could run a frequency sweep and he flat out refused, even though no one was in the room. A couple of years later I had an excellent recording of trumpeter Erik Trufazz "Bending New Corners" and he said he would be playing Classical music for the demonstration. Needless to say there won't be a need to revisit this system.
I don't see some of the basic problems that exist ever logically explained. If we are to take a typical orchestral recording with two mics there can be no way to insert the spatial information of the venue unless there are two stereo mics in the back of the ensemble. With a dipole or bipole speaker the information coming off the front of the speaker is played off the back driver(firing the same info forward and back) this is only an approximation of the reverent energy in the hall.
Second, when I ran a frequency sweep the speaker exhibited a slight mushroom cloud in the polar response, better than a lot of speakers but still it was there.
Lastly with an open backed speaker there are going to be major cancellations at the half wavelengths unless equalization is in use. For a speaker this documented in the design phase only to be addressed as-can't be measured with conventional measurements-the point becomes moot. Also for a speaker with this amount of surface area it is very limited in low end response.
When I was at RMAF the second year the Orion was there I asked Linkwitz if I could run a frequency sweep and he flat out refused, even though no one was in the room. A couple of years later I had an excellent recording of trumpeter Erik Trufazz "Bending New Corners" and he said he would be playing Classical music for the demonstration. Needless to say there won't be a need to revisit this system.
I heard the Orion once at RMAF, maybe its first year. I was also underwhelmed. "What's the big deal?" about sums it up. Nice enough, but not really out of the ordinary, not a game changer. I've spoken to a few people who have heard it in a domestic setting and really like it, so maybe it was the room?
FWIW, I'm an open baffle fan, and also love classical music. So it should be right up my alley.
FWIW, I'm an open baffle fan, and also love classical music. So it should be right up my alley.
I heard both the Orions and the LX521 at BAF and they were very good speakers. The good sound comes not from some revolutionary concept but from expert execution. From driver selection to crossover slopes, points, and filters, the design sounds very well integrated. It's not just technical expertise on show but also good taste in what good sound is about.
From my brief experience, speakers that wow at first have peculiar flaws whereas those that give you the feeling of "what's the big deal" without having any obvious flaws are the ones that sound good in the long run and on a vast majority of recordings.
From my brief experience, speakers that wow at first have peculiar flaws whereas those that give you the feeling of "what's the big deal" without having any obvious flaws are the ones that sound good in the long run and on a vast majority of recordings.
I've recorded real life familiar sounds with a pair of high quality large diaphragh microphones in a ORTF setup and then played the raw file on all my loudspeakers.
The Orions (V2.1) are simply the more overall accurate and realistic audio rendering that i ever heard, spacialisation is simply exceptional.
Hi cormeister,
i am talking about dipoles, OB speakers and room interaction in general here:
True dipoles have higher Directivity Index (around 4.8dB) than conventional speakers (these are near 0 dB at low frequencies) from low to mid frequencies.
Since with dipoles there is less energy radiated to the side angles around 90 degrees off axis, ipsilateral side reflections from the room are - with speakers toed in - typically reduced in level, while arrving at the same time at the listener as with conventional speakers.
Because of that, the perceived difference between dipole and conventional is also due to "nature and distance" of the side walls in the particular listening room.
If there are "naked", flat and close side walls, there will be a huge difference (dipole vs. conventional) in that a "toed in" dipole will excite less ipsilateral reflections than the conventional monopole speaker and thus the balance between ipsilateral and contralateral reflections will move to the contralateral, when using a dipole.
If the side walls - at relevant reflection areas - are absorptive or even highly diffusive, the perceivable difference (dipole vs. conventional) will be smaller.
IMO you are making a common mistake here in assuming the rearward radiated sound from a dipole speaker would be aiming at "simulating/mimicking the reflections of a music hall" (or original venue in general): This is a common misunderstanding but nevertheless plain wrong.
First of all, the dipole has higher directivity overall than conventional speakers and thus excites less reflections in a "usual" room.
Typically there is more mid and high frequency energy radiated to the rear as with conventional speakers, but less to the sides.
All in all a dipole is not aiming at "sounding different", it is also aimed at sounding (simply) 'correct', like any other speaker.
So also your "listening expectation" in searching for "something special" was completely misleading to your listening experience.
(Are you a HiFi - Reviewer or associated with that community ?)
'Validity' of the dipole concept showed in that - in your case - it "worked like other speakers" in that particular room.
Differences between dipole and conventional are largely due to "which reflections will we have and which not", that is (also) depending on the room and setup.
Combing due to front wall reflections is not limited to dipoles:
Again, this is a common stereotype.
Due to the dipole's rear radiation having "inverted phase" just the cancellations will occur at different frequencies and be (possibly) slightly more pronounced (depending on the room) due to directivity than with a conventional speaker.
In theory there will also be notches (by frontwall reflectios) in mid an high frequencies, but this is simply solved by making them "inaudible" in using a sufficient distance to the front wall. Also in dipole settings - my personal opinion here - the front wall and corners are recommended to be diffusive, which can be a general advantage even with conventional speakers:
Reflections (front, bottom, ceiling, back) in the median plane, having higher interaural correlation, tend to be more disturbing.
But equalisation of such interference effects (from early reflections) - even in mid to high frequency range ? - is very likely introducing more problems than solving anything.
When directing the room's corner and frontwall reflections to the sides, that will contribute in making dipoles and "conventional" speakers work in that room as well ...
IMO dipoles need some arrangements in the room to work properly, as also conventional monopole speakers need arrangements. Both sets of arrangements are bit different, but it is also possible to treat the room and setup for both systems to work in the very same room, if this is the goal (e.g. in a reviewer's listening room).
The most "immune" radiation pattern - if room treatment and setup is to be compromised as in most cases - is IMO the cardioid pattern at low and mid frequencies. But also cardioids benefit from properly aligned conditions ...
Last edited:
Room reverberation doesn't replace the acoustics of a venue, it merely gives a sense of the room. They can exist side by side and be heard separately.
I started out with that same opinion. I have used a plugin that mimics the Dolby way of processing and also something I picked up over on the DIYmobileaudio.com forums, which took the Hafler circuit a step further by using a band passed and delayed (L-R) signal as the base. None of them convinced me completely.
As I was trying to mimic a passive Haas kicker, I figured in a passive kicker there should still be some center information in there, as it's impossible to leave that out in a passive situation. After that I started playing with the level of center added and even its timing.
This eventually brought me a way more convincing result. I couldn't figure out why at first. After Jim1961 showed his measurements (mimicking a measurement at the ear with head shading) things fell into place why this was different, better even.
A well balanced stereo signal without (early) room reflections shows comb filter dips at the ears from the cross talk of the left speaker reaching the right ear and vice versa (green trace). But if we look at what happens with a Haas Kicker we see these dips get filled in somewhat (orange trace). Even more so with a bit of reverb tail added to that mix (red trace).
I wouldn't be surprised the Haas Kicker helps fill out the negative effects of the inevitable cross talk in a Stereo setup.
One more thing to add though. In my opinion, this will only work with a properly diffused ambient signal. It enhances the 3D feel of the stage and also helps tonality overall.
Jim1961's post: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/277519-fixing-stereo-phantom-center-61.html#post4746283
To show the difference what happens between using a single mic position for measurements and what happens at the ear look at this graph:
Measurements made by jim1961.
I noticed bigger tonal differences between phantom center and sides when I didn't mix in a bit of center. Also way less depth without the center stuff added.
I figure your cave with it's diffuse nature probably does a good job of filling in the cross talk dips, giving you that huge sense of depth. So using diffusive panels vs absorption seems like a good idea. The timing when that diffused signal hits the ear still left up for debate. But also the level differences between direct and room sound.
I did try some other ways to get similar results, things like cross talk cancelation and your phase shuffler. It seems a diffuse late (but well within the Haas limit) signal can help imaging become more 3D like. Keep an eye on intelligibility while listening and the best results become more obvious. So far the diffused Haas kicker is my preferred solution, together with some gentle mid/side processing on the mains.
Do you still have the cave? I would have some ideas how to fix the width problem you were having
. Though in all honesty, judging from the pictures, it might be very early reflections/diffraction giving away too much of the position of the speakers.
Last edited:
It should be interesting IMHO to see the SEAS W22EX-001 rear measured radiation pattern...
Unless this loudspeakers has a pistonic radiation on its whole frquency range the real life rear lobes of this driver sould be a tad differents than the front ones.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.