Just a quick shot: "Right" is loud enough to cancel your room's response and delayed enough to mimic the recording venue? But maybe that's too easy.
It is not about what is right. It is, in this and any other case, what is pleasing to the listener. Example, I have been listening to "enhanced stereo" since the mid 80s. I have a six channel set up which uses the old Yamaha DSP - 1 digital sound processor to generate the "ambiance channels". With it I can add delays, reverb, echo, and control the band width of the ambiance channels. Not to mention the dozens of build in configurations. Just about any HT receiver on the market today has similar features. This isn't exactly what SL is playing with, but the objective is the same, generating a more satisfying, may I say more realistic, sound field in the listening room. SL will not doubt try to make a scientific argument for what he is doing as it tends to be his style. However, the bottom line is that he thinks it sound better than pure 2 channel stereo. On the other hand, so does the six channel setup I use from time to time. You just have to start by getting off the 2-channel purest track.
[edit] Or maybe it's just about increasing the magnitude of the direct sound??? I haven't tried SL experiment.
[edit] Or maybe it's just about increasing the magnitude of the direct sound??? I haven't tried SL experiment.
The problem is that you can't go to the equivalent of "concert" for 99% of all recordings because the only reference point is "what the mastering engineer heard".
That I agree with and I believe some one already posted that in that light the only thing that is right is to listen using the mastering speakers in the mastering studio, and even that assumes the recording/mixing engineers got it right. Other than that my position has always been that stereo, or mono, or multichannel play back is nothing more than an attempt to provide a pleasing experience. Right and wrong don't apply, except to the listener. If I like system A and you like system B, who has it right?
I think I read something on SL's site about better voice intelligibility and better localization. That sound a lot like increased ratio of direct to reflected sound. As far as localization and voice, moving closer to the speaker has the same effect. Listening is a more heavily damped room also has that effect. I recall that SL's room is fairly live (RT60 about 600 msec?). I know if I listen in a room that live I don't like it at all. I am more in the BBC camp with RT60 in the 300 msec range.
I think music industry and especially audiophools are lost in the presence of all those trees around them. Listen to a binaural recording done through your own ears and you get to see the forest again.
I know that I sound like a grumpy old man but the way music recordings are created today is just completely screwed up.
You're German? Start here: http://www.casakustik.de/forum/index.php?topic=199.0 But beware, you might end up like me 🙂
It seems to me that what you get is an averaging of any longer-distance artifacts from the further away speakers- nearfield won't have high-q cancellation notches from floor bounce etc the same way, so could fill in those gaps somewhat, even at a reduced nominal level.
I meant time differences in the program material they're fed, not the typical time alignment used in any surround system to calibrate the setup. Sure, the time alignment Linkwitz has done is the same as with surround sound, but the program material fed to the "surround" speakers is quite different from a surround system.
With a dedicated surround track, the program material fed to the surround speakers are mostly decorrelated and strongly delayed sounds, to generate envelopment.
In this case, exactly the same signal as the corresponding front speaker is sent through the speaker with no relative delay at the listening position. The Watsons do not generate artificial "early reflections" or something. They just widen the stereo angle and decrease crosstalk effects due to increased head shadowing. It's all on the Linkwitz page.
My point being that a surround setup with discrete channels can deliver all of that and more. Technology's here but nobody seems to use it.
Like I said Markus, I and a couple of friends, have been using the technology since the mid 80. It just sounds better (more realistic).
Come on guys, you are way off the line of what Watson really does 🙂
Simply put: It enables low freq ITD perception in a listening room. It's Blumlein's dream come true 😀
Note that Watson only reproduces low freqs, highs must be rolled off, as Linkwitz says.
Close proximity allows dominant direct sound at low freqs. Normally in a small room acoustic space low freq ITD cues are ambiguous, due to room reflections arriving within the modulation bandwidth. Some researchers say ITD is the dominant localisation cue, e.g. Gerzon, but only IF it is not ambiguous. Normally in a small room localisation is thus based other cues than low freq ITD. Watson changes this, enabling ITD perception.
Blumlein's stereo uses amplitude panning to generate interference field where velocity vector defines the propagation direction of the imaginary wavefront, which is perceived as ITD. It's known since 80 years ago.. 🙄
It's not about cross talk cancellation, nor it is about simulating early reflections..
- Elias
Simply put: It enables low freq ITD perception in a listening room. It's Blumlein's dream come true 😀
Note that Watson only reproduces low freqs, highs must be rolled off, as Linkwitz says.
Close proximity allows dominant direct sound at low freqs. Normally in a small room acoustic space low freq ITD cues are ambiguous, due to room reflections arriving within the modulation bandwidth. Some researchers say ITD is the dominant localisation cue, e.g. Gerzon, but only IF it is not ambiguous. Normally in a small room localisation is thus based other cues than low freq ITD. Watson changes this, enabling ITD perception.
Blumlein's stereo uses amplitude panning to generate interference field where velocity vector defines the propagation direction of the imaginary wavefront, which is perceived as ITD. It's known since 80 years ago.. 🙄
It's not about cross talk cancellation, nor it is about simulating early reflections..
- Elias
I'm fully aware of surround, and the 2ch+watson does not sound "surround".
It's very much like a normal stereo setup ie. no ambience from the back or "big enveloping sound". Yet spatially sublime. It does not detract from the "main speaker"
Even after few days I'm still amazed as how the two speakers right next to me does not seem to produce any hint of sound. Just standing there.
"All" available music is in two channels.
Technology itself rarely generates needs. Apparently there's no wider need nor desire for discrete multichannel music ? First people must have a need of something that only discrete multichannel can fullfill. Today they don't have that need.
- Elias
It is indeed a pity that we're still stuck with mostly stereo program material (at least for music). Surround sound fixes many problems.
Problem is that 99% of all recordings probably don't carry interchannel time differences. And if they do, they are optimized for the conventional stereo triangle which requires much larger time differences than we experience with natural sound sources. See http://www.sengpielaudio.com/InterchannelLevelDifferencesAndInterchannelTimeDifferences1.pdf
The watsons are "marketed" as stereo enhancement speakers. Not replacement.
Do they enhance stereo reproduction? Yes I think so. Why? ... let's find out.
Joachim... waiting for your impressions of them !
Do they enhance stereo reproduction? Yes I think so. Why? ... let's find out.
Joachim... waiting for your impressions of them !