Helmut, I'm just evaluating the relevance of WFS by looking what the requirements for recording, mixing and playback would be. When we just end up in simulating a dedicated number of virtual speakers in a virtual room then I don't see any arguments to change from stereophony to WFS. Did I miss something?
Best, Markus
Best, Markus
gedlee said:
Hello, that was not meant as any offense at all. Hundred people = hundred opinions / approaches to music. I have respect for people trying to find out, what is it all about. I just (being an MSc. in power electronics) tend to approach music from the emotional instead of technical view. As long as the music is playing, I am happy, be it a boombox or hi-end system. I like to be surrounded by music and I have tried a way, that gives me better results than ordinary stereo pair. Be it natural / hi-fi or not. I mostly listen to pan-potted stereo with artficial reverb - and there is really no "natural" way of listening to it. And it is more or less the same at live concerts with a PA.
I will end posting into this thread, as I have said already what I needed to say (and not even a minimal offense taken - I would be more off topic than anything else).
Marcus,
As you mentioned above the recording process becomes reduced upon the dry recording of each single source, probably spatial closed small groups of sound sources. The advantage of the wfs in compartion with other 3D approaches as dummy head recordings or in certain degree ambisonisc is, the signal remains completely manipulable, you can compress, equalize or change the position nearly at will. Yet on the playback side you can change your virtually listening position inside the recording room with your remote, if you want by my proposal. Besides real 3D, the elevation of the mirror source position is substantionally in my view.
I see it alike you, wfs speakers only for the reproduction of conventionally recorded material wouldn’t justify the effort. Though, the possibility for changing the playback room acoustics in the early reflection range, adapted regarding the signal content would be a significantly advantage already. To fake a acoustic behavior by reverberation, as done in many gadgets, fails the goal.
Best, H.
www.holophony.net
To music for sure but sound reproduction is just a technical process. No magic behind it, just pure science at best. A lot of audiophiles tend to forget/ignore that.
Best, Markus
pelanj said:
Pelanj, no bad choice you made.
Had a pair of these
http://www.carlssonplanet.com/v1.php
once and the impression of "spaciousness" was very similar to what you describe and seem to like.
When I first heard them I was smashed by the airy presentation throughout the room and I imediately bought them.
Were a simple whizzercone fullrange in a vented box firing upwards - very minimalistic concept - not that detailled for nowadays standards but absolutely great overall "sound-carpet" you could virtually swim in (dont agree with the review from the link at all).
Greetings
Michael
mige0 said:
thanks for the link Michael! 🙂
I didn't know this particular Sonab speaker which actually reminds my own CFS very much, see: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=121385
see picture attached to post No 4
I have proposed a new method of placement of such speakers, inspired by Harold Beveridge placement directives for His line source ESL's, see post No1 in the linked thread
best regards!
graaf
pelanj said:
Music is the emotional side of the situation and rightly so. But reproduction is a science and its important not to mix these two things up. I am pasionate about music, emotional too, but reproducing music is a purely objective problem of right and wrong. There should not be any emotion involved.
Rudolf said:
SLS is very recording-type dependent
were those effects of "image stretching", "corner location" etc. consistent with every recording You have used?
I can confirm that such effects can happen with some recordings but only with some
on the other hand from my experience I have to say that these are not just room interaction effects - "artificial soundstage created by room reflections" - because many times with closely-miked recordings without reverb I have observed complete lack of soundstage with SLS
reflections were there - without doubt - yet I have observed NO artificial "listening room dependent soundstage"
from that follows that SLS is not creating false uniform soundstage relying on interaction with listening room acoustics
rather room acoustics just amplify spatial cues present in the recording
when they are absent no soundstage is "created"
this is high fidelity , no tricks
Rudolf said:
well, problems with recordings’ compatibility caused me in the end to move my interest to Carlsson-like omnis in Beveridge-like setup described in the "Loudspeaker and room" thread
this is something I would advocate now - not Stereolith which is certainly "not for everyone" still there is something in this Stereolith thing which works and when it works it is great, realism far beyond conventional stereo
something showing that not everything is well understood yet in the field
and I would say that all classical music lovers really SHOULD check it up!
from my experience I can tell that most classical recordings seem to compatible with SLS
best regards!
graaf
Russell Dawkins said:
yes, they can be marvelous
SLS is not limited to listening somewhere down the central axis only, at least not in my experience
it is however very recording-type dependent
best regards!
graaf
syntheticwave said:
yes, indeed
Stereolith and SLS can be genuine "super speakers" with compatible recordings in optimal setup and on the other hand fail miserably with incompatible recordings
syntheticwave said:
problem of ceiling reflection can be eliminated or at least sufficiently diminished
I mean line sources and my own proposition
see post No 1: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=121385
I also think that in SLS the speakers themselves are not perceived as physical sound source therefore vertical reflection of their output off the ceiling and off the floor in the median plane is completely unproblematic
besides I also think that ceiling reflection is the least important reflection of all
what psychoacoustic information is carried by reflections coming from above?
I believe that no really important
moreover I believe that smaller acoustics cannot "cover" bigger acoustics
I buy David Moulton's argument - reflections in room carry information about reflections of bigger recording venue provided that such information is present in the recording
best regards!
graaf
pelanj said:
well, HiFi, high fidelity to what?
interesting question for another discussion 🙂
pelanj said:
yes - very wide "sweet spot" 😀
and there IS stable imaging, not pinpoint sharp but natural
sound sources occupy acoustical space and are surrounded by acoustical space, soundstage represents a kind of stable continuum
natural sound localization is never pinpoint sharp in the fashion of conventional stereo
"pinpoint imaging" is artificial, unnatural, simply not HiFi (if we assume that "fidelity" in HiFi refers to acoustical "reality" ie. live sound)
pelanj said:
and for me, at least for the time being 😉
best regards!
graaf
markus76 said:
yes indeed
as You probably know I am very interested in science
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=105136
but well - where is The Science?
we are exploring Mars and we have Large Hadron Collider but what is The Science behind spatial reproduction of sound?
Ben Bauer from 60-ties?
Alan Blumlein from 40-ties?
markus76 said:
🙁so where is The Science?
best regards!
graaf
graaf said:
graaf,
science is
- not hopping on every flashy new train that passes by.
- not relying on your emotions more than physical evidence.
- not trying to convince everyone by words more than by provable facts.
If I would have known that you already have given up on SLS I might have spent my time with nicer things than follow your recommendation to try SLS myself.
If I would have known that SLS is not compatible with my set of 5 CDs that span every aspect of musical style and reproduction that I am interested in, I could have had a nicer couple of listening hours with my proven system which is not at all picky with "closely-miked recordings without reverb".
If I would have known that you are not really interested in other peoples experiences but in the defense of your preconceived opinions, I could have .....
Ahh, what do I talk?
mige0 said:
I browsed through the Carlsson pages some days ago and found these very inspiring!
gedlee said:
Please do not get me wrong - I agree with what you say, but I do not have sufficient knowledge of acoustics / psychoacoustics, so I have found this speaker setup by experimenting after another people's advice. And as long as it works for me, I do not care about the science behind and why it works. I leave this on you and others. I just enjoy music and therefore the work of lots of people behind. I know this is a scientific thread - and I should have posted elsewhere (and I did post the same into the Stereolith thread). I was interested in what Markus can hear with SLS and I promised to share my personal experience as well. So there it was 😀
Anyway, this forum has a few very helpful and educated members - and that is good for all of us. I've learned a lot and still learning😉
Rudolf said:
Rudolf, Rudolf...
You could have known
I wrote about it many times, for example:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1619682&highlight=#post1619682
Rudolf said:
You know so well what I am really interested in...
without even reading carefully what I write here...
markus76 said:
It is true that the more basal parts of the brain show less interindividual differences, but the processed information they deliver have to be interpreted by the forebrain. I don´t know whether you have followed the discussion about overtone hearers and fundamental hearers in Germany. It clearly shows that the "higher" parts of the brain can set individual preferences for the information the "lower" parts deliver. And I am quite sure there are similar phenomenons in spacial hearing that haven´t been explored yet.
Oliver, of course there's a lot we don't know or even understand but stereophony or multichannel is only a technical process when it comes to recording, mixing and playback. I strongly believe that we can measure the relevant parameters. Maybe we just haven't found the right rating system. Blesser/Salter proposed a hierarchy in hearing that I find very useful for further discussion:
- sensation
- perception
- meaning
By the way two very good books that I'm currently reading:
"Spaces Speak, Are You Listening?: Experiencing Aural Architecture", Blesser/Salter
"Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms", Toole
Best, Markus
- sensation
- perception
- meaning
By the way two very good books that I'm currently reading:
"Spaces Speak, Are You Listening?: Experiencing Aural Architecture", Blesser/Salter
"Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms", Toole
Best, Markus
Hello,
Have you actually done any research yourself with high directive speakers like dipole line arrays or second order cardioids and their behaviour in small rooms for stereo imaging at low freqs (200Hz-1kHz)?
- Elias
gedlee said:
Have you actually done any research yourself with high directive speakers like dipole line arrays or second order cardioids and their behaviour in small rooms for stereo imaging at low freqs (200Hz-1kHz)?
- Elias
- Status
- Not open for further replies.