I also take a step back when I see 'yet another Toole quote' being used.
Toole, Olive and their followers are convinced that stereo is 50s tech, obsolete and upended by immersive multichannel audio. That’s one position to take but not very productive for people that like their stereo recordings that were produced and created for stereo. That is the art that inhabits my record collection and that I want to access and enjoy whether or not it’s Haitink conducting Debussy in the Concertgebouw, George Martin producing the Beatles at Abbey Road or Radiohead Amnesiac. The art is the reason for my equipment not the other way around.
In fact, most multi-channel system placement (toe-in, two-thirds intersection etc.) and calibration procedures are required to satisfy all the requirements for proper stereo reproduction as that's where they borrow most of the principles from. Besides, in a properly calibrated setup, it is said that even brief switch-overs to a (decent) optical (SR) soundtrack is not perceived by many within the audience.
Also, most multi-channel mixes generally drive only few selected speaker positions at a time, usually in the direction (within the sound stage) of where the current action, for example, the vocals/dialogue at the centre, doorbell from the surrounds or a helicopter/spaceship flying overhead. So, for all practical intents and purposes, they are basically stereo, with just a few pans here and there.
I am, thus, of the opinion that stereo is where all multi-channel comes from, and in that way, it is / never will be obsolete.
Also, most multi-channel mixes generally drive only few selected speaker positions at a time, usually in the direction (within the sound stage) of where the current action, for example, the vocals/dialogue at the centre, doorbell from the surrounds or a helicopter/spaceship flying overhead. So, for all practical intents and purposes, they are basically stereo, with just a few pans here and there.
I am, thus, of the opinion that stereo is where all multi-channel comes from, and in that way, it is / never will be obsolete.
Totally understand. I am in the middle of veneering a project for a client in English sycamore. Kind of a waste, given the water-based finish they are after. In comparison, I recently made an outside table in heart redwood and would consider doing diffusers with the same material. Not blotchy, inexpensive and it takes oil well.
Back when there used to be quite a few small lumber mills. Often they'd have a load of red pine that wasn't stored properly and got stained. Brown and blue streaks throughout the load. They'd sell it cheap .. like under a buck a board foot. Beautiful contrast when clear finished.
ClassicalFan, this thread may be of interest to you: https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/late-ceiling-splash.332507/
I read through it. While the things discussed there might be able to increase the sound field, they are much more complicated than I want to deal with. Thanks anyhow for suggesting it.
I was looking at the Troels builders page and found an answer that reminded me of classicfan, the guy put diffusers in a small room and it worked. Well maybe it will help...
http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/Faital-3WC-10_Marian.htm
http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/Faital-3WC-10_Marian.htm
Looked at it. Not sure how this would help in my situation. He claims with the diffusers he got a great sound: detailed, three-dimensional, live. But I'm already getting that without any diffusers.
My goal has been to simply increase the size of the sound stage to go beyond the area between the two speakers.
Yeah. Also looks like there is a big mattress on the floor right in front of the speakers. That's got to have a significant effect on the sound, so the influence of the diffusers themselves is really questionable.
Many threads here to review, can you remind us how you did it?
Without diffusers or absorbers, I only imagine that he was modifying the position of the speakers and/or changing them, which was within his options.
Thanks.
I didn't do anything extra. Just have the speakers in an equilateral triangle, 6.5' per side, with listening chair at the apex. Essentially a near field set up.
Important also is that the room, 11' x 12', has very thick carpeting over an equally thick pad over a wooden floor. It is a very quiet room, and the speakers have a fairly narrow dispersion. The combination works very well to minimize side wall reflections. I am happy with that aspect of it. Would just like to the have a little larger sound stage, if that is possible.
I haven't read the entire thread, so apologies if I'm repeating anything already said, but it occurs to me that a simple matrix arrangement might be best for your circumstances. It's possible to spread the soundstage by feeding-in "difference" signals to the left and right speakers. This thread illustrates the sort of thing I mean:
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/stereophonic-sound-from-a-single-loudspeaker.200040/
The speakers can of course be separated (to form Left, Middle and Right). Conceivably, you may get away with just Left and Right if the implementation doesn't suffer from a "hole in the middle". Otherwise, you'll need an extra speaker (preferably similar to the other two).
By the way, the quality of the amplifier(s) is important - I remember I compared a (base-model) Cambridge A1.mk3 against a NAD 3021, using Quad ESL57s. The Cambridge sounded OK, until I switched to the NAD - the difference was not subtle, the NAD sounded open, sweet and transparent, the Cambridge veiled and "wiry" by comparison (and its soundstage suffered accordingly).
Of course, the NAD is renowned as an extremely well conceived and executed design. Nevertheless, I'm sure the Cambridge measured well (though noting it uses an ic power amplifier).
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/stereophonic-sound-from-a-single-loudspeaker.200040/
The speakers can of course be separated (to form Left, Middle and Right). Conceivably, you may get away with just Left and Right if the implementation doesn't suffer from a "hole in the middle". Otherwise, you'll need an extra speaker (preferably similar to the other two).
By the way, the quality of the amplifier(s) is important - I remember I compared a (base-model) Cambridge A1.mk3 against a NAD 3021, using Quad ESL57s. The Cambridge sounded OK, until I switched to the NAD - the difference was not subtle, the NAD sounded open, sweet and transparent, the Cambridge veiled and "wiry" by comparison (and its soundstage suffered accordingly).
Of course, the NAD is renowned as an extremely well conceived and executed design. Nevertheless, I'm sure the Cambridge measured well (though noting it uses an ic power amplifier).
I wonder if the one-box example put you off? The main point I'm getting at is that you can expand the soundstage of any stereo pair by mixing in some of the opposite channel (with phase reversed).
Too much mixing and there'll be a hole in the middle - which can be fixed using a third speaker.
You can get an impression of this by adding in a third speaker, if you have one to hand: just connect left and right speaker "negative" terminals together, connect this to the centre speaker's "positive" terminal, and the centre speaker's negative terminal to the amplifier's common "negative" output terminal.
(The above assumes the amplifier's outputs are not bridged and the "negative" output terminals are grounded - as will be the case with 99.9% of amplifiers (excluding class-D). And the arrangement is only a quick and dirty way of getting an idea of what the effect will be like.)