If your system is like in your pic in post #75, you may note the center speaker is having about 6dB less direct sound in the midrange than the side speakers since the baffle step occurs in considerable higher in frequency. In addition your heavily absorbed front wall makes the center speaker a 4pi radiator while side speakers are radiating in 2pi. This gain mismatch is the propable reason to unstable center phantoms you experience.
Have you tried with speakers being all identical ?
- Elias
I think, and it looks like that in theory, if the listening is performed in a strict miniature spot without lateral movements, the speaker arch with identical distances to the listening position may be better. However for any off-center listener the speaker line looks like a much better alternative. And here I'm not thinking about tiny head movements of few cm but large shifts like up to 1m.
Personally I dont like tiny listening spots. Currently I have my 3 speakers in a line and it works well in almost everywhere in my room.
- Elias
I used the search function and found this post from KSTR:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/123426-horn-vs-waveguide-18.html#post1842463
post #884
If this is indeed correct, then Trinaural equations are based on coefficient of 0.5. And my question in original post has been answered 🙂 Thank you.
- Elias
That is because of a time arrival issue. If you are sitting along the center line between the L/R speakers, the center speaker is actually closer to you than the L/R are. This will perceptively reduce the stereo seperation of the L/R mains in favor of a strong mono center image.
Which is a forerunner of the "energy-preserving matrix decoder" which in turn is a forerunner of the "frequency-dependent energy-preserving matrix decoder" to which I'm listening right now 🙂
(From Gerzon's AES convention paper #3180)
Attachments
What about directivity? I finally had 2 hours for myself last night and experimented with three quickly made pipe speakers, matrix from my old denon receiver and dayton RS100. It works! More so on hard panned effects than orchestras but it's a good start. Only two drivers at the opposite end of a horizontal pipe worked well too, sounds a bit like a corner setup in some ways.
Is omnidirectionality good in the mids? Wouldn't a narrower CD all the way down to 100-200hz be better? I know, not an easy thing to achieve.. but I feel there is considerable leak in that range going straight to the ear and not towards the wall..
Is omnidirectionality good in the mids? Wouldn't a narrower CD all the way down to 100-200hz be better? I know, not an easy thing to achieve.. but I feel there is considerable leak in that range going straight to the ear and not towards the wall..
Last edited:
It's the old question for which we still don't have a good answer, "How much room is needed?", i.e. what reflection pattern is optimal.
Sure, but for this specific application it seems to me you ONLY want the room! 🙂
BTW, a corner setup sounds good too. It shows that stereo needs quite a large spread to works well, in my opinion..
BTW, a corner setup sounds good too. It shows that stereo needs quite a large spread to works well, in my opinion..
Last week I was listening to a 2-> 3 matrix with coeff 0.5 in Reaper (I'll upgrade to Markus' script, thanks for posting that). For the afternoon I'm using Dolby PLIIx from my soundcard (Xonar) output.
What exactly does it do frequency wise? It cuts up processing band by band, but how? The Wikipedia article doesn't really say. Or am I totally mistaken and it is just a sqrt(2) center if I'm using 3 speakers.
What exactly does it do frequency wise? It cuts up processing band by band, but how? The Wikipedia article doesn't really say. Or am I totally mistaken and it is just a sqrt(2) center if I'm using 3 speakers.
I also started with cardboard tubes (diam about 12cm, length about 40cm) and FRS8 full range elements 😀 I lifted the tubes so that elements are on ear height. First listened with elements aimed to the listener, then aimed the elements towards the ceiling. This was with passive matrix wiring with coefficient of 0.5. So they were kind of omnis.
Then I placed a large (60*80cm) baffles just behind each tube to make them 2pi radiators, and it was much better !
Omni midrange ? I don't like it very much. It sounds too ambigouos and not very clear. Half space midrange is better, also with matrix.
- Elias
I currently have cardioid mids. Much better and more clarity than with narrow boxes or dipoles too close to the wall. 🙂
If you use the energy-preserving code then remove the 3dB attenuation for the center. Simply replace
Code:
c_out = 0.7071*m_c;
Code:
c_out = m_c;Yep, something like that, but with three separate pipes and a 90 deg angle so they come out as three flowers. I really have to redo it there is just too much omni leakage in the mids, will report back. 🙂
Is it anywhere like this you made ?
Just for the sake of completeness here's the "final" Reaper code for a energy-preserving matrix decoder after Gerzon:
http://mehlau.net/audio/matrix_decoder/
http://mehlau.net/audio/matrix_decoder/
I found some more confirmation on Trinaural matrix coefficients from here
http://www.nubert-forum.de/nuforum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=25770&sid=21d578b674333aa78642a5023fc0a493
And the matrix coefficients according to them are:
Which are the same as referenced earlier from another source.
The thing I don't know is how they know it 😉
- Elias
http://www.nubert-forum.de/nuforum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=25770&sid=21d578b674333aa78642a5023fc0a493
And the matrix coefficients according to them are:
Which are the same as referenced earlier from another source.
The thing I don't know is how they know it 😉
- Elias
That's TriSonic (AES Preprint: "An Optimum Linear-Matrix Stereo Imaging System") with a matrix factor of 0.5.
Just a sub-version of Gerzon's energy-preserving decoder.
Just a sub-version of Gerzon's energy-preserving decoder.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.