I am now kind of half-persuaded to try a pair of fullrange BIB...but I have some D210Ti drivers left - that makes me think I could build a "coffe table" a la Duetto with D210Ti on horns and 10" drivers. No matter how I will be satisfied with the SLS from the point of HiFi, I think I could be satisfied with this "room filling" effect for background listening.
pelanj said:
What you describe here is the theoretically perfect crosstalk cancellation: an infinitely small perfect monopole for the L+R and an infinitelly smal perfect dipole for the L-R signal at the same location creates perfect crosstalk cancellation perpendicular to the dipole axis.
Too bad it is not working well in reality 🙁
So today I have set up my amp and lousy bookshelf speakers in my living room - and I moved the loudspeakers and listened to music a lot
I have some points here:
1. As long as there was any emotion present in the music, it did not matter how I listened to it.
2. I liked speakers at ear height firing up to to the cellar - I love that spaciousness be it HiFi or not.
3. More or less same result with the SLS - but loss of high frequencies was apparent, the sound became imbalanced. Maybe a mono front firing tweeter is not as bad idea as it might seem at the first look.
4. I got a great deal of spaciousness with standard stereo configuration, but the speaker axes crossed before me. I actually prefered this to SLS because there was no hi end loss (as expected).
5. Ceiling firing setup somehow smooths out the response of my speakers, which are a bit unpleasant while listened on axis.
6. SLS and CFS both preserved positions (albeit imaging is not pinpoint sharp) of the instruments/singer while walking around the room - IMHO the greatest advantage to standard stereo setup.
7. Ceiling firing setup is the winner for me (and my music) - I have to find ideal position and height in the room, so that my wife accepts it and I am done🙂
I tried as many different music as I could starting from BW audiophile CD sampler over Bach organ, chamber orchestra, Wagner to my favourite rock/metal recordings (Nightwish, Metallica and that kind of stuff). Some of it in FLAC, some in 192 kbps MP3 (I do not have my CDs moved yet).
All with a Sansui 2x20 W integrated amp, HP laptop as sound source.
As a remark - I tried "one box stereo" with L+R and L-R boxes placed next to each other - woth foobar and matrix mixer - I hope I got the settins right - but it was not impressive at all...
I have some points here:
1. As long as there was any emotion present in the music, it did not matter how I listened to it.
2. I liked speakers at ear height firing up to to the cellar - I love that spaciousness be it HiFi or not.
3. More or less same result with the SLS - but loss of high frequencies was apparent, the sound became imbalanced. Maybe a mono front firing tweeter is not as bad idea as it might seem at the first look.
4. I got a great deal of spaciousness with standard stereo configuration, but the speaker axes crossed before me. I actually prefered this to SLS because there was no hi end loss (as expected).
5. Ceiling firing setup somehow smooths out the response of my speakers, which are a bit unpleasant while listened on axis.
6. SLS and CFS both preserved positions (albeit imaging is not pinpoint sharp) of the instruments/singer while walking around the room - IMHO the greatest advantage to standard stereo setup.
7. Ceiling firing setup is the winner for me (and my music) - I have to find ideal position and height in the room, so that my wife accepts it and I am done🙂
I tried as many different music as I could starting from BW audiophile CD sampler over Bach organ, chamber orchestra, Wagner to my favourite rock/metal recordings (Nightwish, Metallica and that kind of stuff). Some of it in FLAC, some in 192 kbps MP3 (I do not have my CDs moved yet).
All with a Sansui 2x20 W integrated amp, HP laptop as sound source.
As a remark - I tried "one box stereo" with L+R and L-R boxes placed next to each other - woth foobar and matrix mixer - I hope I got the settins right - but it was not impressive at all...
From the conclusions it seems, a pair of older Carlssons - (OA-5 ?) would do the same or maybe would perfom better.
I wonder how could the Stereolith crossover look like - the only way I could find out was a resistive mixer behind a highpass from both channells. And that means connecting grounds of both amp channells - and that cannot be done with all amps, especially not with T-amps. Or is there any other way?
I can think only of one way of doing it. There is a drawing below. I have selected 1st order for simplicity.
The resistors in the tweeter line are there to match the sensitivity and drop 3 dB from the L+R signal. Higher order XO could be used for the tweeter. And if a well behaved woofer is used, there is no need for a lowpass filter on it.
The resistors in the tweeter line are there to match the sensitivity and drop 3 dB from the L+R signal. Higher order XO could be used for the tweeter. And if a well behaved woofer is used, there is no need for a lowpass filter on it.
Attachments
Hello,
So behind a pilar. A simple test will reveal if Moultons assumption has any idea or not: Place your speakers to the position you see the optimum for this set up. Take a thick matress, place it in front of you so that you cannot see the loudspeakers but so that there will be a lot of side wall reflections. Then remove the matress again and see if there is any difference in the phantom localisation?
- Elias
graaf said:
So behind a pilar. A simple test will reveal if Moultons assumption has any idea or not: Place your speakers to the position you see the optimum for this set up. Take a thick matress, place it in front of you so that you cannot see the loudspeakers but so that there will be a lot of side wall reflections. Then remove the matress again and see if there is any difference in the phantom localisation?
- Elias
Hello,
1. I think that is true for all the cases that comes to my mind at the moment.
3. I think mono tweeter in this kind of setup is not bad isea at all. I can image it being quite the contrary actually.
6. Similar experience I got my single mono dipole line array I listened earlier for almost two years. I can be anywhere in the room and image is sharp. Of course in my case it came from the same direction all the time, but the distance depended on the recording, and sound was quite enveloping.
remark. I think if you do a one box stereo other of the two boxes has to be dipole (equalised of course), or you need to have three boxes side by side: L+R in the middle, and L-R and R-L at the sides.
- Elias
pelanj said:
1. I think that is true for all the cases that comes to my mind at the moment.
3. I think mono tweeter in this kind of setup is not bad isea at all. I can image it being quite the contrary actually.
6. Similar experience I got my single mono dipole line array I listened earlier for almost two years. I can be anywhere in the room and image is sharp. Of course in my case it came from the same direction all the time, but the distance depended on the recording, and sound was quite enveloping.
remark. I think if you do a one box stereo other of the two boxes has to be dipole (equalised of course), or you need to have three boxes side by side: L+R in the middle, and L-R and R-L at the sides.
- Elias
Elias said:
well, this is what he says
I am not totally convinced after I have considered what spatial cues are there in stereo setup
as I have written in perception thread:
graaf said:
writing the above quoted I assumed that ongoing ITD cues (phase difference) are disregarded by our hearing under reverberant conditions
anyway, one way or the other, I don't buy Moulton's "reflection" metaphor now
Elias said:
what do you mean? "one box" or "two boxes" (the other one has to be dipole)?
best!
graaf
One box stereo - I was referring to this article:
http://www.embracingsound.com/docs/SingleBipolarLoudspeakersystemforstereoreproductionb0.91.pdf
http://www.embracingsound.com/docs/SingleBipolarLoudspeakersystemforstereoreproductionb0.91.pdf
pelanj said:
I see
on the other hand Stereolith after all is also a kind of one box stereo and is neither "L-R"-"L+R" nor "L-R"-"L+R"-"R-L"
best!
graaf
Hello,
I mean like this as posted earlier
http://www.airsound.net/technicaldescription.php
There is the dipole, which can be also done by back-to-back monopoles with opposite polarity (L-R and R-L). In both cases the low freq roll off must be compensated.
- Elias
graaf said:
I mean like this as posted earlier
http://www.airsound.net/technicaldescription.php
There is the dipole, which can be also done by back-to-back monopoles with opposite polarity (L-R and R-L). In both cases the low freq roll off must be compensated.
- Elias
Nothing new under the sun - and nothing to have a patent for. This article is quite old:
http://www.rawsound.com/articles/MSspeaker/index.html
http://www.rawsound.com/articles/MSspeaker/index.html
pelanj said:
yeah! 😀 You are absolutely right
I remeber that MS speaker, You have already posted the link and the link to Airsound as well
I just like Orbitsound version of it, which I hadn't noticed before when I had visited Airsound website
I mean this small minimonitor T6 and T12 "soundbar" - nice, elegant, harmonizing with contemporary decor and even with contemporary flat screen TVs
actually I had something similar to T12, kind of soundbar appr. 75 cm long but Stereolith-like, to be placed on TV
it worked well
now I have something different on my mind, a kind of sound projector based on Stereolith principle which would be flat and to be hanged on the wall just like flat screen TV
best regards!
graaf
My memory is not what it used to be🙂
Your idea seems interesting - how flat would the speaker be, if you have toput the speakers to the sides? Or you would use slant sides at say 45 degrees? Or just use very small speakers?
Now I see I must get some cheap speakers and start experimenting. I am afraid the soundbar would not work with my TV placement, as there is a large open door on the left side and that means no refective wall. But it could work if I used ceiling for the reflections instead, kind of mix between Carlsson, CFS and SFS style front tweeter.
Your idea seems interesting - how flat would the speaker be, if you have toput the speakers to the sides? Or you would use slant sides at say 45 degrees? Or just use very small speakers?
Now I see I must get some cheap speakers and start experimenting. I am afraid the soundbar would not work with my TV placement, as there is a large open door on the left side and that means no refective wall. But it could work if I used ceiling for the reflections instead, kind of mix between Carlsson, CFS and SFS style front tweeter.
pelanj said:
it could be about 10-12 cm in depth appr. 100 cm wide (found experimentally, for better compatibility with some recordings), height would depend on needed Vb but no more than about 60-65 cm for good visual proportions
I would use four small appr. 3 inches fullrange speakers on each side, Jordan-style, passive correction
pelanj said:
experimenting is joy! 😀
best regards!
graaf