The signal is "processed" (big word for this) in Adobe Audition : two identical tracks, then stereo field rotate.
This is phase stereo, and can be seen in a zooming of the sequence : the intensity is roughly the same but the tracks are in phase opp, confirmed by "molette de la phase" on the left.
I'm not an expert, but I've always seen this phase shift in the authentified binaural records.
This is phase stereo, and can be seen in a zooming of the sequence : the intensity is roughly the same but the tracks are in phase opp, confirmed by "molette de la phase" on the left.
I'm not an expert, but I've always seen this phase shift in the authentified binaural records.
Attachments
Last edited:
Bingo!
(preface for a certain poster: I speak of Stereolith as we know it so far. I'm eager for the workings of the real item to be revealed) . . .
I'll bet that mic'ing (or studio effects) techiques that produce images by introducing L-R phase differences will likely render very nicely on a stereolith, while stereo methods that rely heavily on amplitude differences to create stereo images (pan-potted multitrack recordings) will be less convincing.
Great demonstration & basic discussion on amplitude -VS- phase differences: Stereo Perception and Sound Localisation
Marcus: Please try these samples on the real Stereolith vs. traditional stereo and let us know what you experience!
Typical "minimalist" or realist mic techniques used to capture a listening space provide perceptually useful phase differences. Examples include spaced omni pairs, ORTF pairs, Decca Tree, etc. Introducing "ambiance" mics also provides decorrelated (phase) signal. It's no coincidence that most acclaimed orchestral recordings reflect these approaches.
Some Mic techniques provide little or no phase differences. Coincident-capsule cardiod pairs for example (popular for the first few decades of stereo), create stereo recordings that are fully monaural-compatible. I suspect that playing such recordings on the stereolith will sound less spacious than playback on traditional stereo pair.
Strictly pan-potted studio pop recordings are, by design, used to create (not capture) a listening space. If no phase differences are added (they can be, via stereo reverb chamber or other effects), spaciousness (I suspect) may be reduced by playback on a stereolith-type setup.
This may explain why one poster indicated that clasical recordings work so well on a quasi-stereolith setup, while pop ones tried so far were disappointing.
The Stereolith should produce far better center images than a traditional stereo setup ever could, with a far more stable sweet spot. On the other hand, I look forward to hearing reports on whether it can render hard-panned images.
Eager for the "reveal", Marcus!
-- Mark
Last edited:
that sounds logical but for my part I can tell that my tests of stereolitic back-to back setups lead me to different conclusion, I have posted on the subject many times before so it is sufficient to repost:
I got satisfying results with recordings that I can say with 100% certainty that they were pan potted
it worked as long as there were distance/ambience cues - any space cues and not just position cues
tu put it shortly - it didn't work with dry recordings
2A/B/C with Stereolith:
Speaker is always localized in the center.
Perceptually there's no difference between 2A and 2C.
2B sounds closer whereas 2A/C is farther away and slightly elevated.
3/4 with Stereolith:
Perceptually there's no difference between 3 and 4.
There's a small positional change within an angle of 10° when the speaker is moving from the left to the right.
results as expected - these demonstrations are all closely miked and very dry, on headphones I can sense the acoustical deadness of the recording space
Last edited:
much more interesting samples for testing, Schoeps did very nice job
also check the ensemble sample, in case of piano samples the mikes are practically stuck into the f$%&ing piano - how can anyone expect any sense of space from such configuration? stick Your head into the piano, there is not much space in there 😉
such closely miked recordings are pure audiophile stereo aberrations - this is not what the pianist hear, neither it is anything what anybody on the hypothetical audience hears, this is what an audiophile wants - to stick his ugly head right into the instrument, how can it be realistic? it is pure fiction
Last edited:
Hello!
Update !
Needed more bass ! 😀
Excuse the pullover, it's winter..
How's the sound now: The same studio pop piece that sucked yesterday, I listened again with the bass and it turns to be quite listeneable already !! Even slight phantoms even.. How come a mono bass unveils phantoms that were hidden?! Maybe it's because now listening is more relaxed with balanced sound so brain agrees more with the sound it tries to interprete..
More tests with pop songs reveals that a tweeter is needed, for sure. Next I may try adding a ceiling firing tweeter, of course 😉
I have to say something bad too.. What kind of review only good things to tell. The box bass booms a lot in my room, like I didn't know before 🙄
Stereolith needs a dipole bass !
- Elias
Update !
Needed more bass ! 😀
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Excuse the pullover, it's winter..
How's the sound now: The same studio pop piece that sucked yesterday, I listened again with the bass and it turns to be quite listeneable already !! Even slight phantoms even.. How come a mono bass unveils phantoms that were hidden?! Maybe it's because now listening is more relaxed with balanced sound so brain agrees more with the sound it tries to interprete..
More tests with pop songs reveals that a tweeter is needed, for sure. Next I may try adding a ceiling firing tweeter, of course 😉
I have to say something bad too.. What kind of review only good things to tell. The box bass booms a lot in my room, like I didn't know before 🙄
Stereolith needs a dipole bass !
- Elias
One of the most remarkable features of this concept:
I can turn my head at least +/-60 degrees sideways without corrupting the phantom image !
Unbelievable. For me this has never been possible with stereo triangle. In stereo even slight head turns cause the image to jump to either of the speakers or to split into two parts on both speakers. I suspect pinna cues. To overcome this enjoyment killer I even listened to a single mono speaker for some years. Can you believe?
Now no more artificiality. It's getting better.
P.S. this feature remains me from Ambiophonics where head turning was also possible without corrupting the phantom image.
- Elias
I can turn my head at least +/-60 degrees sideways without corrupting the phantom image !
Unbelievable. For me this has never been possible with stereo triangle. In stereo even slight head turns cause the image to jump to either of the speakers or to split into two parts on both speakers. I suspect pinna cues. To overcome this enjoyment killer I even listened to a single mono speaker for some years. Can you believe?
Now no more artificiality. It's getting better.
P.S. this feature remains me from Ambiophonics where head turning was also possible without corrupting the phantom image.
- Elias
Last edited:
The part where signals are opposite phase sounds like coming from the top of my head. Otherwise it rotates clockwise, but don't go behind but jumps over my head from right side to left.
Thanks, I'll hear them.
Should I travel to Sweden to get them fresh? 😀
I don't think a single center speaker can replace 3 front speaker but if a large sweet spot is the goal then 2 speaker stereo is probably not first priority.
P.S. Please check the Schoeps example, I'd like to hear your opinion.
Last edited:
If by 'phantom' image you mean the phantom center:
When presented with a centered signal (monoaural info within the signal), the stereolith IS a center channel 😱 ! The tweeter goes fully "on" to lock-in center image, and (for the portion of the signal that is mono) results in a nearly omnidirectional center speaker, fully omnidirectional below baffle step frequency.
To the extent that any signal present is uncorellated (L-R different in amplitude and especially in phase) is the extent to which the tweeter is cut-out and the highs are heard mostly (due to cone directivity) from the sidewalls, the center disappears, creating a great deal of envelopment and spaciousness.
There are always tradeoffs: The burden for creating believable phantom images (not to be confused with spaciousness) is now switched to the sides 🙁 . . .
It's a perfectly acceptable (even preferred) compromise for the right listener with the right recordings in the right room. The fussiness of phantom center images always bugs me, so it's worth pursuing. I can't believe WS doesn't offer a subwoofer pedestal to use for a stand, or an all-in-one tower speaker!
-- Mark
Last edited:
Elias, I confirm your post 309 :
If I neutralize the port of my TQWT, the spaciousness is out and the imaging is stuck in the center (I had to found a compromize between boominess and imaging). Your deductions can be OK then.
Same confirmation for the unaffected image by head rotation. As I have this also with my big system this must be a general characteristic of centered emitting systems, as Tuba says.
Have you been checking the localizations of some sharp transients with a spectrum over 1000 Hz? With the help of reflections this can be more than 90° right or left. Not very natural, but entertaining.
A question for the two cardboard prototypes : what's their width ??? 17 cm or more?
Ps : where are hidden the flash player temp files ?
If I neutralize the port of my TQWT, the spaciousness is out and the imaging is stuck in the center (I had to found a compromize between boominess and imaging). Your deductions can be OK then.
Same confirmation for the unaffected image by head rotation. As I have this also with my big system this must be a general characteristic of centered emitting systems, as Tuba says.
Have you been checking the localizations of some sharp transients with a spectrum over 1000 Hz? With the help of reflections this can be more than 90° right or left. Not very natural, but entertaining.
A question for the two cardboard prototypes : what's their width ??? 17 cm or more?
Ps : where are hidden the flash player temp files ?
Last edited:
There you go:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I wrote of that disappearing of the front wall experience on 26th June 2007:
try placements closer to the front wall and with longer listening distances
best,
graaf
I have to admit that at last they managed at Stereolith to design something that has looks, it was their Achilles heel for years
Elias, here's some more stuff to listen to:
Comparing overhead drum miking techniques | recording hacks
Comparing overhead drum miking techniques | recording hacks