A thread with interesting subjects is starting in the Multi-Way forums... it just got more interesting due to a post showing a video of Mr. Griesinger making a presentation:
I've said it before, I'm a big fan of the lectures of Mr. Griesinger, he's been a huge inspiration. This particular video might explain why I remain a believer in "getting the phase right" at the listening seat and to "lower the level of all first reflections" in my room.
I truly believe this is the "why" of getting that phase right, even at higher frequencies. The mid/side trickery I do is all in 'linear phase' because of that.
I have also said there's something 'special' happening when all the harmonics line up just right... maybe watching this presentation will help make 'believers' out of some of you
.
I've said it before, I'm a big fan of the lectures of Mr. Griesinger, he's been a huge inspiration. This particular video might explain why I remain a believer in "getting the phase right" at the listening seat and to "lower the level of all first reflections" in my room.
I truly believe this is the "why" of getting that phase right, even at higher frequencies. The mid/side trickery I do is all in 'linear phase' because of that.
I have also said there's something 'special' happening when all the harmonics line up just right... maybe watching this presentation will help make 'believers' out of some of you
.
What came as a shock to me is the timing of that reflection in the "bad seat" and it's outcome. For our living room I'd hardly call it an early reflection, but it seems under different circumstances it is . It made me do a test where I changed the Haas kicker I have for the center part. Sure enough if I remove the Haas kicker (that was set at about 17 ms) and leave just a hint of reverb, perception changes. I can get the vocal parts on certain songs "to feel closer".
I added the hint of center to my ambience, which was consisting of band passed and delayed L-R and R-L before that, because I noticed a large difference in the "dry" center channel and the more "wet" side channels. I also believed it would help intelligibility. I had read that reflections can help with that, and with the cross talk already eating away it's tonal balance, I figured it needs more help. However, watching Griesinger made me rethink that part. Yes, I had read those notes before, but his story (and subsequent tests)was much more convincing. I'll try and test this on my son, won't tell him what to listen for and let him hear both. Probably will happen on Monday.
This line of thinking was also triggered by knowing how good intelligibility I get with phantom center in movies without a hint of center in the back channels. The slight reverb is to get the dry/wet feel in check. It just sounds better slightly wet, as I did rob a lot of reflections out of the room. No reverb like that on main channels, I'll have to make that clear.
. It made me do a test where I changed the Haas kicker I have for the center part. Sure enough if I remove the Haas kicker (that was set at about 17 ms) and leave just a hint of reverb, perception changes. I can get the vocal parts on certain songs "to feel closer".I added the hint of center to my ambience, which was consisting of band passed and delayed L-R and R-L before that, because I noticed a large difference in the "dry" center channel and the more "wet" side channels. I also believed it would help intelligibility. I had read that reflections can help with that, and with the cross talk already eating away it's tonal balance, I figured it needs more help. However, watching Griesinger made me rethink that part. Yes, I had read those notes before, but his story (and subsequent tests)was much more convincing. I'll try and test this on my son, won't tell him what to listen for and let him hear both. Probably will happen on Monday.
This line of thinking was also triggered by knowing how good intelligibility I get with phantom center in movies without a hint of center in the back channels. The slight reverb is to get the dry/wet feel in check. It just sounds better slightly wet, as I did rob a lot of reflections out of the room. No reverb like that on main channels, I'll have to make that clear.
Last edited:
The previous video, combine with this one:
Contains a lot of information that is useful, or should I say valuable, if you want to have your room work with the speakers.
The tweak I mentioned above was all I needed. I let my son listen and he was thrown off guard... he was smiling and looking around him and to me (I was standing in the doorway across the room) and back into the music. He immediately went to choose a couple of songs he knew would take advantage....
For your information, this was one of them:
All music is influenced by it. I realize now that I've been "off track" for quite a while. Even though the tweak is relatively small, it does have quite a bit of impact on perception. Like Mr. Griesinger put it: if you have the L-R and R-L envelopment working, the backdrop of the music, which we can't quite localize, becomes enveloping in nature. Hard to determine where it comes from, while the localization of the main features in the music become much more clear.
A long time ago I added a hint of stereo in my Haas kicker. Based upon the fact that it would happen in real life, as true reflections, and I was confident it would help with the crosstalk problem. I added it for another reason. I was enjoying my Haas Kicker 1.0, the one with band passed and delayed L-R and R-L. But I did notice the side channels sounding "wet" and the phantom center sounding "dry". So that needed some rectifying. What I didn't have back then was that hint of reverb tail.
Even though the change seems minimal, if you listen to the back-drop by itself, the change is rather big. So how does that work? Without any center part added, the back drop channels become 'out of phase' for the listener. 'Out of phase' means hard to place in perception. Just try it with your mains, connect one speaker out of phase. It's like listening to an undefined cloud of music. Its sort of surrounding you if the stereo triangle does it's job. Quite comparable to what happens here. Add just a whim of center to that back-drop mix and... boom... you created the start of Stereo, you now have a defined center in a slightly differing cloud of music, as it has become more focused. The reason for that is that the center mix or "mid" (from mid/side) information still contains both side channels in a positive polarity. Meaning it gets added to the L-R (and R-L) making the sum of those values more positive (less -R and -L influence). So now that I removed the phantom part from the Haas Kicker, the back drop is all fuzzy again. Adding a hint of reverb to that center, timed a little later (starting at about 25 ms total delay) still makes me perceive the center as "wet" or at least as "wet" as I'd like it to be. Less dry than in a room where all early reflections are removed/absorbed. In line with the sides.
So now I do 'get' more of what Mr. Griesinger wanted to get across. A back drop, that feels enveloping while the main's focused sounds actually are more focused and attention grabbing. The back drop isn't as "2D" anymore, but seems to behave like a living entity. Varying in each song, never boring or the same sauce over everything. Some songs have strong effects, others are more gentle, but all are more "3D".
I didn't loose it all, but most visitors had never heard that full effect of the envelopment. Like I said, I added a whim of center, so there still was some level of L-R and R-L left for the effect to happen. Just not as "breathing" as it now is again. It still enhanced the frontal Stereo effect, but had less envelopment, it's what a room can do as the teachings of Toole has told us, but this way (as Griesinger tried to tell us) you can have your cake (great imaging) and eat it too (plus the envelopment).
I have been searching for it (that stronger version of envelopment) for quite a while as I had heard it at some point in my experiments. I have even had it more extreme, but every now and then, I would hear the back speakers draw attention to themselves. It's a delicate mix of levels to get the best out of it. But huge fun!
I guess this happens if you do this many experiments... at times you go out on a tangent and get lost... for quite a while. It wasn't bad though, but it could have been better. I've mentioned quite often that the goal was and still is: to get the best of what I've heard, combined into one set of DSP settings. This has brought me closer again. It's kind of like "adjusting the room to meet the goals", as that feels like I'm doing.
Contains a lot of information that is useful, or should I say valuable, if you want to have your room work with the speakers.
The tweak I mentioned above was all I needed. I let my son listen and he was thrown off guard... he was smiling and looking around him and to me (I was standing in the doorway across the room) and back into the music. He immediately went to choose a couple of songs he knew would take advantage....
For your information, this was one of them:
All music is influenced by it. I realize now that I've been "off track" for quite a while. Even though the tweak is relatively small, it does have quite a bit of impact on perception. Like Mr. Griesinger put it: if you have the L-R and R-L envelopment working, the backdrop of the music, which we can't quite localize, becomes enveloping in nature. Hard to determine where it comes from, while the localization of the main features in the music become much more clear.
A long time ago I added a hint of stereo in my Haas kicker. Based upon the fact that it would happen in real life, as true reflections, and I was confident it would help with the crosstalk problem. I added it for another reason. I was enjoying my Haas Kicker 1.0, the one with band passed and delayed L-R and R-L. But I did notice the side channels sounding "wet" and the phantom center sounding "dry". So that needed some rectifying. What I didn't have back then was that hint of reverb tail.
Even though the change seems minimal, if you listen to the back-drop by itself, the change is rather big. So how does that work? Without any center part added, the back drop channels become 'out of phase' for the listener. 'Out of phase' means hard to place in perception. Just try it with your mains, connect one speaker out of phase. It's like listening to an undefined cloud of music. Its sort of surrounding you if the stereo triangle does it's job. Quite comparable to what happens here. Add just a whim of center to that back-drop mix and... boom... you created the start of Stereo, you now have a defined center in a slightly differing cloud of music, as it has become more focused. The reason for that is that the center mix or "mid" (from mid/side) information still contains both side channels in a positive polarity. Meaning it gets added to the L-R (and R-L) making the sum of those values more positive (less -R and -L influence). So now that I removed the phantom part from the Haas Kicker, the back drop is all fuzzy again. Adding a hint of reverb to that center, timed a little later (starting at about 25 ms total delay) still makes me perceive the center as "wet" or at least as "wet" as I'd like it to be. Less dry than in a room where all early reflections are removed/absorbed
. In line with the sides.So now I do 'get' more of what Mr. Griesinger wanted to get across. A back drop, that feels enveloping while the main's focused sounds actually are more focused and attention grabbing. The back drop isn't as "2D" anymore, but seems to behave like a living entity. Varying in each song, never boring or the same sauce over everything. Some songs have strong effects, others are more gentle, but all are more "3D".
I didn't loose it all, but most visitors had never heard that full effect of the envelopment. Like I said, I added a whim of center, so there still was some level of L-R and R-L left for the effect to happen. Just not as "breathing" as it now is again. It still enhanced the frontal Stereo effect, but had less envelopment, it's what a room can do as the teachings of Toole has told us, but this way (as Griesinger tried to tell us) you can have your cake (great imaging) and eat it too (plus the envelopment).
I have been searching for it (that stronger version of envelopment) for quite a while as I had heard it at some point in my experiments. I have even had it more extreme, but every now and then, I would hear the back speakers draw attention to themselves. It's a delicate mix of levels to get the best out of it. But huge fun!
I guess this happens if you do this many experiments... at times you go out on a tangent and get lost... for quite a while. It wasn't bad though, but it could have been better. I've mentioned quite often that the goal was and still is: to get the best of what I've heard, combined into one set of DSP settings. This has brought me closer again. It's kind of like "adjusting the room to meet the goals", as that feels like I'm doing.
While I'm having a lot of fun with the renewed ambience experiments, somehow I wasn't yet able to match my previous 'favorite' level of envelopment.
This stuff isn't easy, not really a set it and forget it kind of thing. Just look at a paper like this: Spaciousness and Envelopment in Musical Acoustics and it becomes clear that it isn't cut and dry.
The spaciousness often mentioned in the "teachings of Toole" if I may call it that, is depending on a certain level of early reflections. It is responsible for a "widening" of the source (and diffusing the imaging) according to this Griesinger paper. I'd agree with that, based on my limited personal experience, from the time when I did not have absorption at early reflection points yet. It can also envelop the user with enough lateral reflections, but it isn't quite what I'm after.
I've experimented a lot with the back drop over the years, and did not keep enough track on all the things that changed in-between, so basically, I'll have to re-invent it.
The way it is now, I still have "small room" acoustics with some level of envelopment, but not necessarily that 'spaciousness'. Meaning: I do get the 'background stream' that envelops the listener, separate from a clear frontal image, which is great, as that makes the stage feel much more 3D and 'alive', but early on in one of my many experiments I've had true envelopment that felt particularly spacious. While also keeping the imaging sharp and clear, it was very involving. I guess it will take some work (and time) to find out how to get that back. Change of levels and timing, but also the content of the 'bandpass' of the ambient channels, as all of it matters. And it will vary with the music played, to make it even more difficult.
What I have is highly entertaining and fitting to the (real) space I have. Who knows, a more spacious presentation might just feel forced and out of place after a while. But I still like to try (and find) it (again). If only to learn from it.
This stuff isn't easy, not really a set it and forget it kind of thing. Just look at a paper like this: Spaciousness and Envelopment in Musical Acoustics and it becomes clear that it isn't cut and dry.
The spaciousness often mentioned in the "teachings of Toole" if I may call it that, is depending on a certain level of early reflections. It is responsible for a "widening" of the source (and diffusing the imaging) according to this Griesinger paper. I'd agree with that, based on my limited personal experience, from the time when I did not have absorption at early reflection points yet. It can also envelop the user with enough lateral reflections, but it isn't quite what I'm after.
I've experimented a lot with the back drop over the years, and did not keep enough track on all the things that changed in-between, so basically, I'll have to re-invent it.
The way it is now, I still have "small room" acoustics with some level of envelopment, but not necessarily that 'spaciousness'. Meaning: I do get the 'background stream' that envelops the listener, separate from a clear frontal image, which is great, as that makes the stage feel much more 3D and 'alive', but early on in one of my many experiments I've had true envelopment that felt particularly spacious. While also keeping the imaging sharp and clear, it was very involving. I guess it will take some work (and time) to find out how to get that back. Change of levels and timing, but also the content of the 'bandpass' of the ambient channels, as all of it matters. And it will vary with the music played, to make it even more difficult.
What I have is highly entertaining and fitting to the (real) space I have. Who knows, a more spacious presentation might just feel forced and out of place after a while. But I still like to try (and find) it (again). If only to learn from it.
Fun stuff, playing with the variables and actually more convincing than expected. Setting larger numbers for the gap between impulse peak and reverb (no Haas kicker reflection like I used before, just timed reverb) transfers my space into another one quite successfully. Truly sounding like a hall. Obviously it isn't the space I'd like to be in, but I find that overdoing it leads to ideas about what's possible to achieve. Cut the timing back just a little (e.g. 35 ms instead of 55 ms) leaves the impression of a totally different space. In fact, it just imprints a feeling of space/air, and not draw much attention to what has changed. That's more like what I want/expect.
It is pretty awesome to be ablr to influence perception this way. I remember playing with real space IR's as backdrop, also quite convincing.
I can recommend playing with stuff like this, if you already have a low level of reflections.
It is pretty awesome to be ablr to influence perception this way. I remember playing with real space IR's as backdrop, also quite convincing.
I can recommend playing with stuff like this, if you already have a low level of reflections.
Ambience channels, firing to the sides, I wouldn't dare put that in the mains. According to David Griesinger, this reverb energy needs to arrive from lateral angles. One could fake it coming from lateral angles somewhat, by limiting the top end, but putting it in the mains just won't be the same.
I need the mains to be as clear as possible for that makes them image way better, the least amount of reflections I can achieve is what I'm after. That has been the idea behind the arrays (+ damping panels) and even more so with the frequency shaded arrays.
I need the mains to be as clear as possible for that makes them image way better, the least amount of reflections I can achieve is what I'm after. That has been the idea behind the arrays (+ damping panels) and even more so with the frequency shaded arrays.
I gave "the seat" to my son and played a couple of songs (of his choice) with varying background settings...
On one of the settings he said: "I'm no longer listening to your stereo... I'm listening to a man with a guitar sitting there right in front of me..."
He was listening to "Pink Floyd - Wish You Were Here".
No need to tell you guys that is exactly what I'm after.
On one of the settings he said: "I'm no longer listening to your stereo... I'm listening to a man with a guitar sitting there right in front of me..."
He was listening to "Pink Floyd - Wish You Were Here".
No need to tell you guys that is exactly what I'm after
.
This is fun. I was typing some replies on the forum and answering a DM while my son was listening to "Ayreon - Into The Electric Castle" starting about half way.
His comment afterwards: "I listened to "The Garden Of Emotions" and I was right there! I was literary walking trough that garden of emotions! On my way to "The Valley Of The Queens". This is weird! I was right there."
I kind of like to believe that meant that the music really "grabbed" him. It sucked him into the story. This album now is his second favorite album. The first still being "Dark Side Of The Moon". I'm to blame for both of those choices I guess.
His comment afterwards: "I listened to "The Garden Of Emotions" and I was right there! I was literary walking trough that garden of emotions! On my way to "The Valley Of The Queens". This is weird! I was right there."
I kind of like to believe that meant that the music really "grabbed" him. It sucked him into the story. This album now is his second favorite album. The first still being "Dark Side Of The Moon". I'm to blame for both of those choices I guess
.
A question on another Line array topic got me to do an interesting comparison:
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...d-impulse-response.321283/page-4#post-7191463
Done with simulated data, as I could never get that clear of a comparison with a room getting in the way of the results.
It might explain why I perceive a 'closer' phantom image on certain songs with the shaded arrays.
It goes to show that these simulations do provide us a clear insight of what's really happening.
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...d-impulse-response.321283/page-4#post-7191463
Done with simulated data, as I could never get that clear of a comparison with a room getting in the way of the results.
It might explain why I perceive a 'closer' phantom image on certain songs with the shaded arrays.
It goes to show that these simulations do provide us a clear insight of what's really happening.
A long time ago I asked Dr. Geddes about his difference in opinion on early reflections with Dr. Toole. His reply:
Basically he referred to the choice in music being a possible factor in the preference of the DI of a speaker. Both agree that it needs to be a constant or smooth DI. I've always wanted to ask Dr. Tool about his view. I got my wish overnight...
And an earlier post of his in the same thread might also be of interest:
That looks familiar, right? The biggest flaw of stereo being that phantom center.
I've found the cure I can live with for both problems, different from Dr. Toole, but my preference. My kind of Fi.
Basically he referred to the choice in music being a possible factor in the preference of the DI of a speaker. Both agree that it needs to be a constant or smooth DI. I've always wanted to ask Dr. Tool about his view. I got my wish overnight...
And an earlier post of his in the same thread might also be of interest:
That looks familiar, right? The biggest flaw of stereo being that phantom center.
I've found the cure I can live with for both problems, different from Dr. Toole, but my preference. My kind of Fi.