I had thought so, but few people seem to have the room to accommodate multiple speakers, other than for home cinema. So, whilst still seeking to widen the stereo field where appropriate, I thought I'd broaden the topic to discuss how "big" a sound you can get from arrays of small speakers.Pano said:
So I set an arbitrary entry point of a 12 inch bass driver as the minimum for consideration. Then, for three smallish speakers, I collated the number of them required for the combined bass units to equal or exceed the entry point. I also noted the physical size of the resulting speaker arrays, as an indicator of how much they would dominate the room. The results were:
No. Speaker____________ Size Metric Imperial_ Eq. Bass
32 Microlab FC330(sat)___ _87 litres__ 3.1 cu ft 12 inch
64 Microlab FC330(sat)___ 174 litres__ 6.1 cu ft 17 inch
_8 Ariston MSX-07's______ _38 litres 1.3 cu ft 11 inch
16 Ariston MSX-07's______ _76 litres 2.7 cu ft 16 inch
_8 Wharfedale Diamond I's _73 litres 2.6 cu ft 12 inch
16 Wharfedale Diamond I's 146 litres 5.1 cu ft 17 inch
This suggests that you need rather a lot of Microlab FC330s to get into the "big" league, and that the resulting array was the largest!
Whereas, eight Ariston MSX-07's fell just short of the entry point chosen, but they were exonerated by the modest size of the resulting array.
Whilst the Wharfedale Diamonds showed their age by being almost twice the physical size of the MSX-07's. However, as I had eight Diamonds to hand, I proceeded to unscrew them from the stands I'd previously put them on, and arranged them in to two stacks.
The next question was how to connect the speakers...
Last edited:
Ha! How did I miss this one? It was 1970s era quadraphonics (discrete & matrix) and passive ambience recovery / ambiophony that got me interested in hi-fi in the first place, and I think I played with some variations on this multi-speaker stereo arrangement about 20 years back.
In the quad[raphonic] / 'ambiophonic' world (such as it was) we called variations on this theme 'width stereo'. Often done with the extra stereo pair behind the listener, which was lousy for obvious reasons, but when you moved them forward it worked a whole lot better, and I'd encourage people to try it if they can. Linkwitz did his variation with the Watson SEL so there's heavyweight support for the broad concept: WATSON-Stereo_Expansion_Loudspeakers
IIRC when I tried it, I simply ran the output of a tape-loop (remember those?) from my amplifier into a cheap integrated which powered the extra speakers so they had some independent level adjustment that way -which was also useful when running rear speakers playing the stereo difference signal for ambiance recovery. I remember thinking it worked well in some situations, but I never tried it with more than four speakers. I haven't got much space at present but I'll see if I can dig a couple of spare pairs of speakers out of my store when I'm never over there & see if I can run a temporary setup. Be nice to experiment with this again.
In the quad[raphonic] / 'ambiophonic' world (such as it was) we called variations on this theme 'width stereo'. Often done with the extra stereo pair behind the listener, which was lousy for obvious reasons, but when you moved them forward it worked a whole lot better, and I'd encourage people to try it if they can. Linkwitz did his variation with the Watson SEL so there's heavyweight support for the broad concept: WATSON-Stereo_Expansion_Loudspeakers
IIRC when I tried it, I simply ran the output of a tape-loop (remember those?) from my amplifier into a cheap integrated which powered the extra speakers so they had some independent level adjustment that way -which was also useful when running rear speakers playing the stereo difference signal for ambiance recovery. I remember thinking it worked well in some situations, but I never tried it with more than four speakers. I haven't got much space at present but I'll see if I can dig a couple of spare pairs of speakers out of my store when I'm never over there & see if I can run a temporary setup. Be nice to experiment with this again.
Last edited:
Good to see you here, Moose. 
Yes give it a try, even with pairs of different speaker the effect is worthwhile. I hope to try it with 3 matched pair some day soon.
Yes give it a try, even with pairs of different speaker the effect is worthwhile. I hope to try it with 3 matched pair some day soon.
Likewise. 🙂 Will be very interested to see how you get on if you can manage some matched speakers.
I'm really looking forward to playing with this. 🙂 It's got to be 20 years since I last did anything like this, and some of these passive width stereo, ambiophonic setups etc. were really quite interesting -they just got mostly lost in the trainwreck that was quad.
I've actually got a couple of pairs of Viotti One prototypes stashed in my storage locker, along with a tweaked production pair I use for my normal listening, so I might even be able to manage a full 6 matched set.
I'm really looking forward to playing with this. 🙂 It's got to be 20 years since I last did anything like this, and some of these passive width stereo, ambiophonic setups etc. were really quite interesting -they just got mostly lost in the trainwreck that was quad.
I've actually got a couple of pairs of Viotti One prototypes stashed in my storage locker, along with a tweaked production pair I use for my normal listening, so I might even be able to manage a full 6 matched set.
Hi Moose,
I'm glad to have stirred up some memories for you. Do you recall "Pentaphonics"? That was my contribution to "the train wreck that was quad". In brief, in 1978 I proposed the use of five speakers, to reduce the speaker spacing from 90 degrees to a slightly more reasonable 72 degrees. It never caught on.
Anyway, I digress. This thread is not about surround sound, home cinema, or anything involving mixing, cross-feeding, phase effects, tonal effects, artificial ambience etc... Though it has morphed into a broader sense of "big" sound, that embraces not just wider stereo, but also trying to achieve "big" sound with smaller, less expensive, kit in smaller surroundings. I hope that you have an opportunity to try it out.
I'm glad to have stirred up some memories for you. Do you recall "Pentaphonics"? That was my contribution to "the train wreck that was quad". In brief, in 1978 I proposed the use of five speakers, to reduce the speaker spacing from 90 degrees to a slightly more reasonable 72 degrees. It never caught on.
Anyway, I digress. This thread is not about surround sound, home cinema, or anything involving mixing, cross-feeding, phase effects, tonal effects, artificial ambience etc... Though it has morphed into a broader sense of "big" sound, that embraces not just wider stereo, but also trying to achieve "big" sound with smaller, less expensive, kit in smaller surroundings. I hope that you have an opportunity to try it out.
Where was I? Oh yes, I'd just removed the eight Diamonds from the stands they had been screwed to and piled them up. Next was to decide and build the cabling. The decision was quite simple. Connect each stack of four speakers in series/parallel.
Series/parallel, as the name implies is a mixture of serial and parallel. First you connect a pair of speakers in series, which doubles the impedance. So two 8 Ohm speakers total 16 Ohms. You then put another serial pair in parallel, which halves the impedance back to 8 Ohm. So the four speakers have the same load and sensitivity as one, but four times the headroom. Then do the same again for the other four speakers and you have eight speakers powered by a two channel stereo amp.
Series/parallel, as the name implies is a mixture of serial and parallel. First you connect a pair of speakers in series, which doubles the impedance. So two 8 Ohm speakers total 16 Ohms. You then put another serial pair in parallel, which halves the impedance back to 8 Ohm. So the four speakers have the same load and sensitivity as one, but four times the headroom. Then do the same again for the other four speakers and you have eight speakers powered by a two channel stereo amp.
Thanks for posting that. I had come up with basically the same scheme myself, it's nice to see it confirmed.
I had come up with basically the same scheme myself, it's nice to see it confirmed.
Yes indeed, I recall a couple of variations on the theme, either with active or passive processing. Quad was always much better with the rear channels moved forward to ~alongside the listener to get that angle down (unless it was an ambiance extraction setup with the rears simply playing the stereo difference signal). Your pentaphonics may have indirectly caught on anyway: Tate Logic in modified form became the first Dolby ProLogic after all. However, apologies for the digression.
I've tried this multi-speaker stereo setup in the past as noted so will try to get my spare speakers out of the store & set something up again over the next few days. I think I've got a spare amplifier I can use for it too, so I can adjust the levels easily. Be good to play with it again. 🙂
Building my speakers into arrays is progressing:
I've decided to screw the Diamonds together in pairs, which will then be bolted together to make two stacks of four speakers each. These can then be split down to four stacks of two speakers:
This will also need the introduction of a link in the wiring between the pairs of speakers, that can be replaced by a longer lead when the pairs are separated. So the revised schematic looks like:
Eight Microlab 330(s) have been built into two stacks of four speakers.
I'm hoping that the "piece de resistance" will be the Ariston MSX-07s. Recent visits to a well known auction site has garnered eight more of these cheap and cheerful speakers. This should allow me to have four stacks of four speakers each. However, building stacks of them is complicated by the the shape of their moulded cases. Fortunately, they have built-in M4 sockets in the top and bottom. So I've decided to bolt the speakers horizontally into MDF frames. However, my wood-working skills are non-existent. So I've ordered three pre-cut pieces of MDF, to make a prototype. Some holes will be pre-drilled, and I'm hoping that these will hold the frame square and stable, making it relatively easy for me to add the remaining mounting holes. We'll see...
I'm hoping to get that done in the next few days, suppliers willing.
I've decided to screw the Diamonds together in pairs, which will then be bolted together to make two stacks of four speakers each. These can then be split down to four stacks of two speakers:
This will also need the introduction of a link in the wiring between the pairs of speakers, that can be replaced by a longer lead when the pairs are separated. So the revised schematic looks like:
Eight Microlab 330(s) have been built into two stacks of four speakers.
I'm hoping that the "piece de resistance" will be the Ariston MSX-07s. Recent visits to a well known auction site has garnered eight more of these cheap and cheerful speakers. This should allow me to have four stacks of four speakers each. However, building stacks of them is complicated by the the shape of their moulded cases. Fortunately, they have built-in M4 sockets in the top and bottom. So I've decided to bolt the speakers horizontally into MDF frames. However, my wood-working skills are non-existent. So I've ordered three pre-cut pieces of MDF, to make a prototype. Some holes will be pre-drilled, and I'm hoping that these will hold the frame square and stable, making it relatively easy for me to add the remaining mounting holes. We'll see...
I'm hoping to get that done in the next few days, suppliers willing.
Yamaha AVRs (and most others) have a dsp option to send stereo signal to all speakers without matrixing (Dolby ProLogic etc.), they call it "Surround Decoder"
And surprise! there is also one of 17 options called "Pure Direct"
RX-V685 - Downloads - AV Receivers - Audio & Visual - Products - Yamaha - Other European Countries
And surprise! there is also one of 17 options called "Pure Direct"
RX-V685 - Downloads - AV Receivers - Audio & Visual - Products - Yamaha - Other European Countries
Hi Juhazi
Thanks for this, it is good to know that this facility is widely supported. However I'm not aware that the usage I suggest has been documented before, but that is a side issue. What I'm interested in is to encourage others to try it for themselves. 😉
Thanks for this, it is good to know that this facility is widely supported. However I'm not aware that the usage I suggest has been documented before, but that is a side issue. What I'm interested in is to encourage others to try it for themselves. 😉
Sorry, the right setting is 7ch stereo! I'd use it only for parties and like, it's not really hifi in pure sense, but testing how it sounds doesn't cost you anything! One must have set delays and volume very well for all speakers if listening happens in a single spot!
Sur Decoder is for multich source
Sur Decoder is for multich source
Last edited:
@Juhazi
Thanks for the clarification, but I doubt that we are talking about the same thing. What I'm talking about is not 7 channel anything, and does not involve setting delays. The OP covers most of the idea, but was focussed on the design of a unit that is not actually necessary. So the focus has shifted to using loudspeaker arrays to produce "big" systems (but still without cross feeding, phase shifting, artificial delays etc...)
Thanks for the clarification, but I doubt that we are talking about the same thing. What I'm talking about is not 7 channel anything, and does not involve setting delays. The OP covers most of the idea, but was focussed on the design of a unit that is not actually necessary. So the focus has shifted to using loudspeaker arrays to produce "big" systems (but still without cross feeding, phase shifting, artificial delays etc...)
Months have passed and interest in this thread seems to have ended. 🙁 However, there are a few questions I'd like to ask, so I'll just briefly sum up:
Big Sounds
How do you define "Big Sounds"? How about:
Min 95dB at 1m, with no audible speaker or amp distress. And flat to 40Hz (Music), or 20Hz (Sound effects). Is that anywhere near it?
Microlab FC330's
I assembled the Microlab FC330's into two stacks of five. I.e.
Four speakers in series/parallel and one separate. This simplified doing A:B comparisons between the arrays and individual speakers. However, I was disappointed with the results, so I've put them aside.
Wharfedale Diamond 1's
I assembled the Diamonds into two stacks of four, which
gives each stack a power handling of 100 Watts RMS. The
Kenwood MA300 power amp matches this (two channels driven), indicating a combined output of 200 Watts RMS. This, with a sensitivity of 86dB at 1 Watt at 1 metre, equates to 109dB (at 1 metre). Initial listening is encouraging so far as the power handling. is concerned, but I do not seem to be getting any additional bass extension. I had thought that the bass drivers acting in unison would achieve some bass extension. Is that just a myth? Note: In case the tuning of the bass reflex ports is affecting the bass, I've tried it with and without bungs in them, with no apparent affect. Thoughts?
Widening the Stereo Field
The initial focus of this thread was on the use of six speakers to widen the stereo field to 2.5 times the speaker-to-speaker distance. However, as members here pointed out, few people have listening rooms that can accommodate six speakers in line. Also, as the topic was widened to include arrays of speakers, I have decided to replace the six individual speakers with four stacks of four. Four stacks can double the stereo field for a given stack-to-stack distance.
Ariston MSX-07's
Construction of the MSX-07 stacks was held up awaiting delivery of the parts for the mounts. I have at last assembled sixteen Ariston MSX-07's into four stacks of four speakers. Each stack has a power handling capacity of 100 Watts RMS, giving a combined capacity of 400 Watts RMS. Each stack requires its own power amp channel. I have not had time to listen to them.
Big Sounds
How do you define "Big Sounds"? How about:
Min 95dB at 1m, with no audible speaker or amp distress. And flat to 40Hz (Music), or 20Hz (Sound effects). Is that anywhere near it?
Microlab FC330's
I assembled the Microlab FC330's into two stacks of five. I.e.
Four speakers in series/parallel and one separate. This simplified doing A:B comparisons between the arrays and individual speakers. However, I was disappointed with the results, so I've put them aside.
Wharfedale Diamond 1's
I assembled the Diamonds into two stacks of four, which
gives each stack a power handling of 100 Watts RMS. The
Kenwood MA300 power amp matches this (two channels driven), indicating a combined output of 200 Watts RMS. This, with a sensitivity of 86dB at 1 Watt at 1 metre, equates to 109dB (at 1 metre). Initial listening is encouraging so far as the power handling. is concerned, but I do not seem to be getting any additional bass extension. I had thought that the bass drivers acting in unison would achieve some bass extension. Is that just a myth? Note: In case the tuning of the bass reflex ports is affecting the bass, I've tried it with and without bungs in them, with no apparent affect. Thoughts?
Widening the Stereo Field
The initial focus of this thread was on the use of six speakers to widen the stereo field to 2.5 times the speaker-to-speaker distance. However, as members here pointed out, few people have listening rooms that can accommodate six speakers in line. Also, as the topic was widened to include arrays of speakers, I have decided to replace the six individual speakers with four stacks of four. Four stacks can double the stereo field for a given stack-to-stack distance.
Ariston MSX-07's
Construction of the MSX-07 stacks was held up awaiting delivery of the parts for the mounts. I have at last assembled sixteen Ariston MSX-07's into four stacks of four speakers. Each stack has a power handling capacity of 100 Watts RMS, giving a combined capacity of 400 Watts RMS. Each stack requires its own power amp channel. I have not had time to listen to them.
Last edited:
Including a large baffles / baffle wall could further integrate the speakers to result in a "wall of sound" with much smoother panning effects between speakers, all from regular stereo content.
Interesting experiments Jedaisoul! 
There is still little understood and much to be improved in stereo reproduction.
There is still little understood and much to be improved in stereo reproduction.
Yes this thread has gone to sleep. It's been on my mind but life has gotten in the way of doing any more experiments at the moment. My initial results were promising, but further tries will have to wait until autumn or winter. 🙁
Thanks for an interesting read. It's not something I could try due to space constraints in my living room.
As a further twist how about turning the stacks bipolar with the sane amount of speakers facing backwards? A bit of BSC for free.
As a further twist how about turning the stacks bipolar with the sane amount of speakers facing backwards? A bit of BSC for free.
I don't think that SWMBO would tolerate large baffles! 🙁 I sail pretty close to the wind as it is! 😉