Just for fun I've played some q-sound tracks, from Roger Waters to see if it would still be able to freak me out.
It didn't as I've come to expect what happened but the barking dog on The Ballad of Bill Hubbard. I did try it with my son as he had no prior listening experience to that particular track. Yup, the dog surprised him coming from far back to the right of him. The bizarre 'Three Wishes' is always fun too on unsuspecting listeners.
As I've said before, all the trickery I had come up with worked very well for a few songs, but had it's draw backs like being overly positional dependent. Yet, I come very close to what I have had without using anti-crosstalk and stick with mid-side EQ. It's that last bit of definition that 'can' be had that's missing a bit. It isn't much and I'm sure I wouldn't miss it if I hadn't heard it
. Right now the side panned sounds do all things I want, be it the shape of the stage/imaging positions etc. Somehow, that little extra anti-cross talk made you feel there's a (real) person there right in front (either singing or playing guitar). Hard to explain(*), but I'll play some more to get me closer to that 'feel' again. I do remember having had this battle before. So maybe I should look at the slight touch of (band passed and attenuated to -30 dB) reverb again that I use on the phantom mix..
How it all sounds right now is plenty addictive, wanting to hear more songs and listen longer, it works on just about everything I throw at it. This means the balance is just about where I need it to be. There's enough to play with to try and 'get it all at once' though (lol).
(*) I've talked about this effect before, as it seems to resemble the 'pop' that Griesinger describes in his lectures. Having two sources play the central part, does mess with that effect.
It didn't as I've come to expect what happened but the barking dog on The Ballad of Bill Hubbard. I did try it with my son as he had no prior listening experience to that particular track. Yup, the dog surprised him coming from far back to the right of him. The bizarre 'Three Wishes' is always fun too on unsuspecting listeners.
As I've said before, all the trickery I had come up with worked very well for a few songs, but had it's draw backs like being overly positional dependent. Yet, I come very close to what I have had without using anti-crosstalk and stick with mid-side EQ. It's that last bit of definition that 'can' be had that's missing a bit. It isn't much and I'm sure I wouldn't miss it if I hadn't heard it
. Right now the side panned sounds do all things I want, be it the shape of the stage/imaging positions etc. Somehow, that little extra anti-cross talk made you feel there's a (real) person there right in front (either singing or playing guitar). Hard to explain(*), but I'll play some more to get me closer to that 'feel' again. I do remember having had this battle before. So maybe I should look at the slight touch of (band passed and attenuated to -30 dB) reverb again that I use on the phantom mix..How it all sounds right now is plenty addictive, wanting to hear more songs and listen longer, it works on just about everything I throw at it. This means the balance is just about where I need it to be. There's enough to play with to try and 'get it all at once' though (lol).
(*) I've talked about this effect before, as it seems to resemble the 'pop' that Griesinger describes in his lectures. Having two sources play the central part, does mess with that effect.
I'm a rather lucky fellow to have a mint-like vinyl copy with the rare embossed cover art.Sure you've heard of the album: Deja Vu from Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young?
A song like 4 + 20 or Carry On...
Lots of more well known songs on there too. Like,
Almost Cut My Hair
Teach Your Children
Our House
At least I think those got quite a bit of airplay.
A day or so ago, Arjen Lucassen put up this entire album on Youtube. (along with a few of his other albums)
If you opt to get it, hunt down the original copy, not the remaster.
Very hard to get on Vinyl, I think my Son just scored the last sealed copy off of ebay
.(all vinyl versions are from the first masters though, good to know)
Last edited:
Anyone reading this thread still a regular over at ASR? I still read the threads that interest me but can't post due to being banned.
There's a thread about Dunlavy and his paper on loudspeaker accuracy gets mentioned. A while ago I've scanned that paper and ran it trough OCR to do it justice (I hope). Feel free to post it, no need to mention me. The works of John Dunlavy were a huge inspiration for me in my project. In a way my project has some similarities to those big towers of his.
John Dunlavy, FIREE, MAES etc. - Loudspeaker Accuracy
There's a thread about Dunlavy and his paper on loudspeaker accuracy gets mentioned. A while ago I've scanned that paper and ran it trough OCR to do it justice (I hope). Feel free to post it, no need to mention me. The works of John Dunlavy were a huge inspiration for me in my project. In a way my project has some similarities to those big towers of his.
John Dunlavy, FIREE, MAES etc. - Loudspeaker Accuracy
I suppose the speaker that is mentioned in that paper would be either the Dunlavy Audio Laboratories (DAL) SC-IV, SC-IV/A or the SC-V.
The SC-VI has been reviewed in Stereophile as well. As far as I know John Dunlavy never completed his DSP assisted version, the Magnus that was in development.
In a way, the Synergy horn is a very clever and compact (and improved) way to pack such a WMTMW. Though the DAL towers would have quite a narrow vertical coverage compared to those horns. Tom Danley does have his own versions with limited vertical coverage though, equally clever using the paraline.
One day I'll take the time to work up a Vituixcad model of his SC-IV or V or VI. Out of pure curiosity what kind of vertical coverage those big speakers have.
The SC-VI has been reviewed in Stereophile as well. As far as I know John Dunlavy never completed his DSP assisted version, the Magnus that was in development.
In a way, the Synergy horn is a very clever and compact (and improved) way to pack such a WMTMW. Though the DAL towers would have quite a narrow vertical coverage compared to those horns. Tom Danley does have his own versions with limited vertical coverage though, equally clever using the paraline
.One day I'll take the time to work up a Vituixcad model of his SC-IV or V or VI. Out of pure curiosity what kind of vertical coverage those big speakers have.
Last edited:
True, it's not perfect or ideal. Yet, the room will mess it up far more in a regular listening triangle at home.
We don't live in anechoic spaces, which is why directivity matters. The Synergy horns are quite well behaved. If one would base it on Mabat's ATH horns, it could even be improved. The first Synergy horns like that are starting to pop-up.
The Dunlavy speaker will feature a rather narrow vertical listening window. Less floor and ceiling trouble, but I don't know how it's horizontal and vertical directivity pattern is shaped.
We don't live in anechoic spaces, which is why directivity matters. The Synergy horns are quite well behaved. If one would base it on Mabat's ATH horns, it could even be improved. The first Synergy horns like that are starting to pop-up.
The Dunlavy speaker will feature a rather narrow vertical listening window. Less floor and ceiling trouble, but I don't know how it's horizontal and vertical directivity pattern is shaped.
Thanks for sharing the Dunlavy paper even though I don’t agree with all of his points. My many years in this and the recording sector have shown me that diaphragm material matters beyond break up behavior, but the overall timbre and exotic materials don’t impress me. Good ol paper and silk remain most familiar to my ears when compared to the audible singer in our booth or the drummer in the studio. A HUGE surprise to me as of late is poly cones……..they retain that familiarity and yet add in just an additional hint of clarity and definition. Aluminum IMO is an epic fail.
IME, the whole argument for measurements as a reference falls apart when you attempt to define exactly what that reference is. If one asserts its within the recording itself, think again……..there is absolutely no reference standard here. Engineers, Artists and those financially vested in these projects aren’t immune to their own subjective bias or concrete limiting factors of time, financial resources or equipment used in the process. The art form across each touch in the process is more often compromised than not.
And then there’s the room……AT LEAST 50% of the performance value and MOST often overlooked factor. The reality that each and every user listening room is different isn’t an understatement by any means and it’s IMO the single driving factor that drives the audio industry that there’s so many environmental variables that end users try to overcome with different speakers and playback devices.
IME, the whole argument for measurements as a reference falls apart when you attempt to define exactly what that reference is. If one asserts its within the recording itself, think again……..there is absolutely no reference standard here. Engineers, Artists and those financially vested in these projects aren’t immune to their own subjective bias or concrete limiting factors of time, financial resources or equipment used in the process. The art form across each touch in the process is more often compromised than not.
And then there’s the room……AT LEAST 50% of the performance value and MOST often overlooked factor. The reality that each and every user listening room is different isn’t an understatement by any means and it’s IMO the single driving factor that drives the audio industry that there’s so many environmental variables that end users try to overcome with different speakers and playback devices.
I liked the page from Lynn Olsen where he went over direct radiators and their material:
http://www.nutshellhifi.com/library/speaker-design2.html
I'm a paper fan myself, in fact I did hesitate if moving towards the glasfiber Scan Speak 10F would be a good move. But after hearing them in person, a kind gift from @BYRTT got me the 10F 8424G00 I use as ambient speakers, I added that material to my approved list
.Measurements make a lot of sense to me, not to be able to compare it to the recordings, but to bring me a point of reference from which I could start. Listening tests and the adjustments that followed have determined which balance I ended up liking. The latter Vituixcad simulations I've done following in @nc535's shoes have showen me the all the reasons why I liked it like that. The rest is up to how Stereo works with it's inherited flaws and the interpretation of our brain... Even that can be "massaged" to something more likable.
Which is why I've always said: pick a speaker that can work with your room! Additional treatment can take care of the rest. With the additional ambience speakers I create my improved listening environment. There sure is some common ground between my arrays and those Dunlavy towers.
I don't have a need to produce audio, my self appointed job is to enjoy what's out there already. So a virtually created Haas kicker can fill in what I stole from the room with my absorption panels, making it a more pleasing listening environment than I actually have. It's easier to make a small room sound large than to make a large room sound small
. The Lexicon plugins are hard to beat for their job in the Ambience mix. A little goes a long way.Mentioning that Lexicon plugin, aside from the influences I took from John Dunlavy and surely from Tom Danley, I think the teachings from David Griesinger have been indispensable. I should drop way more names like Earl Geddes for his persistence of correcting the wrongs he sees on this forum (don't have to agree with all of em), Roger Russell (RIP) and his successor at McIntosh David Smith for each of their elaborate work on arrays, Linkwitz for various reasons and most of all, this forum and it's inhabitants I didn't yet mention. One name I just have to call out: Werewolf or Lycan, whichever name he did use, has been an inspiration for sure. From his early lessons at DIYMobileAudio to his fun lecture on arrays right here.
That, for me is the reason to share the Dunlavy document. Take from it what you will, it has helped to inspire me and I hope it will inspire others.
I got myself an update of APL_TDA to be able to see some things more clearly.
If you look at the Vituixcad predictions of my modded line arrays, you'll notice that drop in the DI at 4-5 KHz, or at the upper side, a bump in the power response:
A close-up of the DI/Power response:
The horizontal coverage is pretty even and smooth, no doubt those devil's horns seen in the vertical Directivity plot are the reason for that bump/dip.
As the rest of the vertical behavior is quite clean (an understatement), this anomaly can really stand out. What it does in listening is making some 'esses' stand out. It may also throw off a guitar solo at times. The more the room is taken out of the equation, the more every wart that's left is going to stand out, that much has become clear to me.
I did already make a virtual plot of the array with it's floor and ceiling effects... by making virtual copies of the array 'above' the ceiling and 'under' the floor. That way I could save an IR that includes all these effects, what it looks like is this:
The general shape of the vertical Directivity stays quite similar, but it's a bit hard to find out it's "real life" effect in the room. There's a wide comb effect caused by those horns somewhere between 4 and about 9 KHz. But how do we find it in the room? Well, I already knew the answer to that one, as I did find it earlier on with my unshaded arrays; in a plot made with APL_TDA!
Let's see how it looks as measured in my renovated room with the frequency shaded arrays:
So how much of an annoyance is it? Not that much, really. I can EQ it out (as the frequency at which it happens stays constant, only the timing of that disturbance changes somewhat, relative to where you are in the room) with a pretty steep Q of 8 and about -2.2 dB. The noticeable "esses" are gone, no freaky 'stand out notes' left in guitar parts. To be completely honest, I think I'm the only one that ever noticed it. Probably triggered by my knowledge of the dip/peak in the DI/Power response.
The main thing this new session solved for me was that I already had a broader EQ dip that was shaped much like the peak in the Vituixcad power response prediction, but somehow it still felt a bit "off" to me. A run with APL_TDA solved it for me by showing it's only quite a narrow peak around 5 KHz instead of that much more broad region starting at 4 Khz seen in the Power response predictions. One can also see that the current reflective peak off of the floor/ceiling is somewhat les pronounced than the earlier measurements of the unshaded array showed. The rest of the in-room effects are similar enough though, and most probably caused by the vertical planes like walls/furniture etc.
Another (small) thing to notice in the APL_TDA graph: I can still win a bit of timing by adjusting the phase on the subwoofers. APL_TDA remains my favorite program to show these details in timing/frequency more clearly. Be aware that we are looking at a Stereo in-room measurement that has been processed and normalized to make these tiny details stand out.
Now I have to find the time to play with APL's real time analyzer.
If you look at the Vituixcad predictions of my modded line arrays, you'll notice that drop in the DI at 4-5 KHz, or at the upper side, a bump in the power response:
A close-up of the DI/Power response:
The horizontal coverage is pretty even and smooth, no doubt those devil's horns seen in the vertical Directivity plot are the reason for that bump/dip.
As the rest of the vertical behavior is quite clean (an understatement), this anomaly can really stand out. What it does in listening is making some 'esses' stand out. It may also throw off a guitar solo at times. The more the room is taken out of the equation, the more every wart that's left is going to stand out, that much has become clear to me.
I did already make a virtual plot of the array with it's floor and ceiling effects... by making virtual copies of the array 'above' the ceiling and 'under' the floor. That way I could save an IR that includes all these effects, what it looks like is this:
The general shape of the vertical Directivity stays quite similar, but it's a bit hard to find out it's "real life" effect in the room. There's a wide comb effect caused by those horns somewhere between 4 and about 9 KHz. But how do we find it in the room? Well, I already knew the answer to that one, as I did find it earlier on with my unshaded arrays; in a plot made with APL_TDA!
Let's see how it looks as measured in my renovated room with the frequency shaded arrays:
So how much of an annoyance is it? Not that much, really. I can EQ it out (as the frequency at which it happens stays constant, only the timing of that disturbance changes somewhat, relative to where you are in the room) with a pretty steep Q of 8 and about -2.2 dB. The noticeable "esses" are gone, no freaky 'stand out notes' left in guitar parts. To be completely honest, I think I'm the only one that ever noticed it. Probably triggered by my knowledge of the dip/peak in the DI/Power response
.The main thing this new session solved for me was that I already had a broader EQ dip that was shaped much like the peak in the Vituixcad power response prediction, but somehow it still felt a bit "off" to me. A run with APL_TDA solved it for me by showing it's only quite a narrow peak around 5 KHz instead of that much more broad region starting at 4 Khz seen in the Power response predictions. One can also see that the current reflective peak off of the floor/ceiling is somewhat les pronounced than the earlier measurements of the unshaded array showed. The rest of the in-room effects are similar enough though, and most probably caused by the vertical planes like walls/furniture etc.
Another (small) thing to notice in the APL_TDA graph: I can still win a bit of timing by adjusting the phase on the subwoofers. APL_TDA remains my favorite program to show these details in timing/frequency more clearly. Be aware that we are looking at a Stereo in-room measurement that has been processed and normalized to make these tiny details stand out.
Now I have to find the time to play with APL's real time analyzer
.
Last edited:
Just a simple phase tweak should have it looking like this:
Following the minimum phase shape of the array + subwoofer's bandpass.
I don't expect it to sound way different in this case, but for peace of mind.
There's some minor EQ work done here too, if anyone is wondering about the differences between this and the previous graph.
It isn't a new measurement, these are just some virtual tweaks based upon the previous result.
Following the minimum phase shape of the array + subwoofer's bandpass.
I don't expect it to sound way different in this case, but for peace of mind
.There's some minor EQ work done here too, if anyone is wondering about the differences between this and the previous graph.
It isn't a new measurement, these are just some virtual tweaks based upon the previous result.