Dear Poldus,
What is wrong with the tube barrier? The absorption material? Did you try removing all the absorption material and relying on your room treatment? I don't know what the cause to this is. I'd be glad if you would inform me some more.
Thank you so much!
saddest regards,
Wolfgang
What is wrong with the tube barrier? The absorption material? Did you try removing all the absorption material and relying on your room treatment? I don't know what the cause to this is. I'd be glad if you would inform me some more.
Thank you so much!
saddest regards,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang,
I found that using just an inch or so of rockwool as per your drawing allows too much sound into the room to effectively remove crosstalk. I found that I needed very thick layers of absorption on the outer walls of the tubes. This, coupled to the inner walls made of plain MDF result in increased high frequencies and subdued mids. You would have to counteract this altered response by modifying the speakers´ filters.
These, however, were only my findings with my speakers in my room, with a poor implementation of your design. Also, my speakers are actually touching each-other, not separated as in your sketch.
I found that using just an inch or so of rockwool as per your drawing allows too much sound into the room to effectively remove crosstalk. I found that I needed very thick layers of absorption on the outer walls of the tubes. This, coupled to the inner walls made of plain MDF result in increased high frequencies and subdued mids. You would have to counteract this altered response by modifying the speakers´ filters.
These, however, were only my findings with my speakers in my room, with a poor implementation of your design. Also, my speakers are actually touching each-other, not separated as in your sketch.
Dear Poldus,
I don't exactly follow how you set the tube barrier up. Do you have a camera? A picture or a sketch would really help.
Thank you.
Kindest Regards,
Wolfgang
I don't exactly follow how you set the tube barrier up. Do you have a camera? A picture or a sketch would really help.
Thank you.
Kindest Regards,
Wolfgang
Sorry, I don´t have a camera.I´ll try to describe the whole contraption:
The speakers are next to each-other, actually touching since this gives the best results in my experience.
3 cm. wide MDF barrier ( 2mts long/1mt. tall)extending from the front baffle of the speakers on to the listener.
absorbent material from the side of the speakers on to the listener; same size as the latter.
All three panels sitting on heavy-carpeted floor.
Plus more absorbent material on top creating a kind of roof.
The speakers are next to each-other, actually touching since this gives the best results in my experience.
3 cm. wide MDF barrier ( 2mts long/1mt. tall)extending from the front baffle of the speakers on to the listener.
absorbent material from the side of the speakers on to the listener; same size as the latter.
All three panels sitting on heavy-carpeted floor.
Plus more absorbent material on top creating a kind of roof.
Uhm... I don't think that's exactly what you can see in the sketch or is it? Your system is not identical with my sketch (imagine I would move the speakers in a 0° angle) If you don't reflect the sound in a different direction with some wood, I don't think it will truly kill crosstalk. Am I missunderstanding something?
Thanks,
Kindest Regards,
Wolfgang
Thanks,
Kindest Regards,
Wolfgang
You are correct Wolfgang. There was virtually no angle between speakers in my implementation. Also the "roof and floor" of the tubes were not angled as in your design, but simply perpendicular to the sides. It is most likely that my results are not transferable to a properly executed rig.
The problem is, to properly put together your design with a span two-meters takes a lot of wood, time and quite some money.
My intention was to get a taste of the thing by cutting a few corners. I am confident that your design warrants further and proper investigation.
The problem is, to properly put together your design with a span two-meters takes a lot of wood, time and quite some money.
My intention was to get a taste of the thing by cutting a few corners. I am confident that your design warrants further and proper investigation.
Spot-on, Wolfgang. I actually also tried a sandwich comprised of 16 mm MDF panel+absorbent layer+ 16mm MDF and prefered it to the plain 30mm MDF for the central wall.
The design may be effective. The only caveat I see is it´s quite bulky and conspicuous especially if the end of the tubes reach up to a listener´s ears height.
I've played with the ambiophonics.
You have to think when you listen to music how you are sitting.
I like to sprawl out on the couch..............
Hands down, the 2 speakers straight in front of you with a barrier works WONDERFULLY...............
And the tube idea works well to block wall / ceiling reflections.
But a divider will get you 95% of the way there.
But it is a pain in the donkey.
Perhaps a pair of nearfield full range drivers sitting on a coffee table close to you with a barrier. That way you can get rid of it when not using instead of taking over a room.
Or you could have the barrier cut out like below to form youin a chair.
http://www.ambiophonics.org/NoThianks.htm
Many of us have done what you've done, but eventually it is too much trouble to setup or be hunched over with a nose close to a barrier.
But I like your spark.
that's why people switch to headphones or a nearfield setup.
Both ways remove the room, which is about 90% of what you hear in a normal setup sitting more than 3 meters away (maybe less).
Norman
You have to think when you listen to music how you are sitting.
I like to sprawl out on the couch..............
Hands down, the 2 speakers straight in front of you with a barrier works WONDERFULLY...............
And the tube idea works well to block wall / ceiling reflections.
But a divider will get you 95% of the way there.
But it is a pain in the donkey.
Perhaps a pair of nearfield full range drivers sitting on a coffee table close to you with a barrier. That way you can get rid of it when not using instead of taking over a room.
Or you could have the barrier cut out like below to form youin a chair.
http://www.ambiophonics.org/NoThianks.htm
Many of us have done what you've done, but eventually it is too much trouble to setup or be hunched over with a nose close to a barrier.
But I like your spark.
that's why people switch to headphones or a nearfield setup.
Both ways remove the room, which is about 90% of what you hear in a normal setup sitting more than 3 meters away (maybe less).
Norman
Norman, I agree with all your comments.
However, if you have a dedicated room long enough, it is definetly the way to go.
I am sitting two meters away from the end of the barrier and it works beautifully. I have a rear dipole with a tiny barrier placed close to the listener´s back for multichannel sacd.
Very much worth the hassle in my opinion.
However, if you have a dedicated room long enough, it is definetly the way to go.
I am sitting two meters away from the end of the barrier and it works beautifully. I have a rear dipole with a tiny barrier placed close to the listener´s back for multichannel sacd.
Very much worth the hassle in my opinion.
Yup, I agree, worth the hassle...............
I'd suggest some sort of cutout in the barrier so you can lay in a couch sprawling and listen at the same time. To me, I need to be in a position that can be comfy for 45 minutes plus...........
I love that the voice is stronger and RIGHT in front of you, even with non time aligned loudspeakers or even full range drivers.
And it's neat that the eyes tend to glance over at sounds that are coming from far outside the speakers position.
Norman
I'd suggest some sort of cutout in the barrier so you can lay in a couch sprawling and listen at the same time. To me, I need to be in a position that can be comfy for 45 minutes plus...........
I love that the voice is stronger and RIGHT in front of you, even with non time aligned loudspeakers or even full range drivers.
And it's neat that the eyes tend to glance over at sounds that are coming from far outside the speakers position.
Norman
If this is truly a do it yourself group you should be able to do this.
Carl Henrik Janson, a Norwegian software designer, after being exposed to Ambiophonic sound reproduction, decided to develop a VST plug-in to allow PC users and recording engineers to have access to RACE. This VST version of RACE allows the adjustment of the delay and attenuation parameters so that the plug-in can be easily adjusted for use with a variety of speakers, listening room geometries, and recordings.with unusual image properties such as 40 foot pianos.
The plug-in details can be viewed by going to www.noachsw.com
The cost of this software is 55 Euros but there is also a free demo package. Compared to the free non-VST versions available on the Ambiophonic site, this VST package can work in programs like Winamp, Media Monkey, Foobar2000, Windows Media Player, or other media players, or in ffdshow codec pack, or as a vst/dx plug-in in programs such as Audiomulch, Plogue Bidule. Cubase, Reaper, Pro-Tools, etc.
On the Noachsw website, there is demonstration of what RACE can do for movies using just your two tiny PC speakers. The demo is quite convincing especially the third movie segment, Ice Age 2. However for a demo like this, the RACE parameters have needed to be preset and not likely to be optimum for any particular high fidelity system. Also by no means can these movies demonstrate what RACE can do for high quality CDs, LPs, or surround movies with real rear sound stages, or recordings made with an Ambiophone, etc.
For full surround you would need two VST plug-ins running and computer hardware that supports 4.0 or 5.1 input and 4.x output. (Note a center speaker is never needed, but the center input must be mixed into the other front channels) Getting a particular computer to feed music or movie sound through the computer from a desired source to a desired output involving sound cards or external hardware is not easy for everyone. Remember that if you attempt this, there is essentially no support to solve problems that may arise.
Ralph Glasgal
www.ambiophonics.org
Carl Henrik Janson, a Norwegian software designer, after being exposed to Ambiophonic sound reproduction, decided to develop a VST plug-in to allow PC users and recording engineers to have access to RACE. This VST version of RACE allows the adjustment of the delay and attenuation parameters so that the plug-in can be easily adjusted for use with a variety of speakers, listening room geometries, and recordings.with unusual image properties such as 40 foot pianos.
The plug-in details can be viewed by going to www.noachsw.com
The cost of this software is 55 Euros but there is also a free demo package. Compared to the free non-VST versions available on the Ambiophonic site, this VST package can work in programs like Winamp, Media Monkey, Foobar2000, Windows Media Player, or other media players, or in ffdshow codec pack, or as a vst/dx plug-in in programs such as Audiomulch, Plogue Bidule. Cubase, Reaper, Pro-Tools, etc.
On the Noachsw website, there is demonstration of what RACE can do for movies using just your two tiny PC speakers. The demo is quite convincing especially the third movie segment, Ice Age 2. However for a demo like this, the RACE parameters have needed to be preset and not likely to be optimum for any particular high fidelity system. Also by no means can these movies demonstrate what RACE can do for high quality CDs, LPs, or surround movies with real rear sound stages, or recordings made with an Ambiophone, etc.
For full surround you would need two VST plug-ins running and computer hardware that supports 4.0 or 5.1 input and 4.x output. (Note a center speaker is never needed, but the center input must be mixed into the other front channels) Getting a particular computer to feed music or movie sound through the computer from a desired source to a desired output involving sound cards or external hardware is not easy for everyone. Remember that if you attempt this, there is essentially no support to solve problems that may arise.
Ralph Glasgal
www.ambiophonics.org
Hi everyone!
The past weeks I've spent experimenting with different factors of Ambiophonics. The tube barrier does work indeed, and no honky like sound is produced, like if you put your head into the flare of a horn speaker. The only thing I had to change is attach a thin layer of Absorption Material on the inner center walls of the barrier. Just like in the last concept of the absorption tube barrier (attached as JPEG) I mounted a 25cm deep basstrap after 25cm of absorption material and it successfully held frequencies down to 100Hz. The bass below 100Hz didn't sound good, and when I tried attaching a Subwoofer the bass was localizable and ruined the entire "I am there" impression. I realized that DiPole Subwoofers work best. 100Hz is the border where your ear stops localizing sound. If a normal pressure transducer Subwoofer is localizable at 50Hz, the absorption around the Ambiodipole would need to be far thicker. So the answer to THE Subwoofer for Ambiophonics is definately DiPole. In my case I have used 2 Mivoc AWX 184 18" Subwoofers.
Hope this helps.
Kindest Regards,
Wolfgang
The past weeks I've spent experimenting with different factors of Ambiophonics. The tube barrier does work indeed, and no honky like sound is produced, like if you put your head into the flare of a horn speaker. The only thing I had to change is attach a thin layer of Absorption Material on the inner center walls of the barrier. Just like in the last concept of the absorption tube barrier (attached as JPEG) I mounted a 25cm deep basstrap after 25cm of absorption material and it successfully held frequencies down to 100Hz. The bass below 100Hz didn't sound good, and when I tried attaching a Subwoofer the bass was localizable and ruined the entire "I am there" impression. I realized that DiPole Subwoofers work best. 100Hz is the border where your ear stops localizing sound. If a normal pressure transducer Subwoofer is localizable at 50Hz, the absorption around the Ambiodipole would need to be far thicker. So the answer to THE Subwoofer for Ambiophonics is definately DiPole. In my case I have used 2 Mivoc AWX 184 18" Subwoofers.
Hope this helps.
Kindest Regards,
Wolfgang
Wow !!!!!!!!!!!!
I love chat from the idea guys !!!!!!!!!!
I thought of the tubes a while ago, not long term feasable.
I despise more circuitry, especially when you've come up with a great setup of amp / speakers. But I am a full range driver fan and detest any equalizer or active crossover in the signal path, or more than what I have already.
The divider is a pain, and tubes also.
I think nearfield will work better.
You can get away with smaller more detailed speakers that wouldn't have to work hard and thusly sound better.
When I made my "ambiophonic demonstrator" that I brought to DiyIowa 3 or so years ago, the carpenter had 10" between centers of a pair of tang band w3-871s on open baffle. When you were about 18" away, the divider didn't help much at all.
Perhaps coffee table speakers would work.
I propose you build a small pair of full range boxes and place them on the coffee table in front of you, but far enough apart not to block the tv. How wide between the speakers is probably up to you.
So far as a sub being localizable, you have some ways to prevent this. You can have the sub between the speaker, not shoved off into a far corner. This probably works best. Another way is a steep crossover. Lastly use low distortion subs (shorting rings help) and/or make them slot loaded push pull. The reduction in harmonic distortion makes it harder to localize them (tones at 75hz making harmonic distortion at 150hz, 225hz, and 300hz). A slot loaded sub sounds so clean, it takes some getting used to. We've been listening to blurry bass for way to long.
Norman
I love chat from the idea guys !!!!!!!!!!
I thought of the tubes a while ago, not long term feasable.
I despise more circuitry, especially when you've come up with a great setup of amp / speakers. But I am a full range driver fan and detest any equalizer or active crossover in the signal path, or more than what I have already.
The divider is a pain, and tubes also.
I think nearfield will work better.
You can get away with smaller more detailed speakers that wouldn't have to work hard and thusly sound better.
When I made my "ambiophonic demonstrator" that I brought to DiyIowa 3 or so years ago, the carpenter had 10" between centers of a pair of tang band w3-871s on open baffle. When you were about 18" away, the divider didn't help much at all.
Perhaps coffee table speakers would work.
I propose you build a small pair of full range boxes and place them on the coffee table in front of you, but far enough apart not to block the tv. How wide between the speakers is probably up to you.
So far as a sub being localizable, you have some ways to prevent this. You can have the sub between the speaker, not shoved off into a far corner. This probably works best. Another way is a steep crossover. Lastly use low distortion subs (shorting rings help) and/or make them slot loaded push pull. The reduction in harmonic distortion makes it harder to localize them (tones at 75hz making harmonic distortion at 150hz, 225hz, and 300hz). A slot loaded sub sounds so clean, it takes some getting used to. We've been listening to blurry bass for way to long.
Norman
Hi Norman,
I guess I will never understand your perspective and how you can listen to music with a one way speaker. I would sure miss my RP's, my Dome midranges, my entire horn constructions and last but not least my corner Horn and DiPole Subwoofer. I would die listening to music with only one spealer.
Anyway, a tang band w3-871 wont really reach far below 100Hz, so you might even ignore the bass trap in the tube, and just use 25cm of damping. Im sure it would work.
Are you using a plain barrier at the moment or RACE software?
Kindest Regards,
Wolfgang
I guess I will never understand your perspective and how you can listen to music with a one way speaker. I would sure miss my RP's, my Dome midranges, my entire horn constructions and last but not least my corner Horn and DiPole Subwoofer. I would die listening to music with only one spealer.
Anyway, a tang band w3-871 wont really reach far below 100Hz, so you might even ignore the bass trap in the tube, and just use 25cm of damping. Im sure it would work.
Are you using a plain barrier at the moment or RACE software?
Kindest Regards,
Wolfgang
I'm a time alignment guy.
I'm a low volume listener now.
I sit 10-12' away in a room probably 16' x 20'
I used to be a crank-o-phile (24db LR active crossover 4-way running a 1038a piezo, ev hr640 / mcm bowtie horn, / ev hr 940 / ev hr90, 2 x 15" crossover points 500-750 and 5khz) alongside 2 dual 18" slot loaded 6th order 18s tuned and boosted at 27hz. That went very loud. My kids said years ago "remember when you told us not to blast it ? We didn't realize it was for our own good." lol
Now I live in an apartment, and I'm older. I don't need 110db to get my thrills, now I want voices to sound real, electrostat clarity, detail, and low volume dynamics. And superior intelligibility. Full rangers get me there. Speed and detail. Or the prat, pace, rhythm and timing.
I enjoy headphones but don't like the image in my head thing.
I currently use a dual 4" bamboo tang band speaker run wide open (loudness button compensates for baffle step, qtc .45) and I run 80hz f-mod to a pair of eminence magnum 15lf (8ft3 tuned to 30hz). I liked my old model 03 or 04 thiels but the midrange in my dual 4" is cleaner, better, and more transparant. More real and fleshy.
I don't use a barrier, I just use a single speaker mono.
If I want to blast it, I hook up a dbx 321 active crossover and use anywhere from 200hz to 500hz. But the crossover with its cheap opamps and multiple coupling caps (prob electrolytic) destroy the transparancy of the full range driver. Sometimes I hook up a tweet horn or a piezo, but usually a day or 2 later, I go back to the simple dual 4" with no crossover.
Adding a 10 band equalizer sucked the life out of my open baffle w3-871s. Clarity was lost along with detail and a bit of magic. All the extra electronics added a haze that put me further from the music. I remember hearing the loss in clarity running a pioneer b20 (wide open) versus using my electronic crossover set for 200hz. The crossover stayed in that setup for about 1 minute. It added a glassy, grainy haze to everything. Yes there are better active crossovers but marchands arn't cheap, and then I'd need a preamp. I like my nakamichi stasis receiver, it sounds wonderfull with its lack of global feedback, smooth and detailed.
Full range drivers typically do the stereo thing wonderfully.
I can only speak of the 2 w3-871s on open baffle. It was neat seeing everyone smile when they listened to it, hearing crickets way outside of where the speakers were sitting directly infront of their face !!!!!!! Also being so close to the panel, there was zero dipole cancellation. But not when you took a couple of steps back.
I usually have a few diy speakers in process or in the wings.
Too many proofs of concept and always trying new drivers and setups. My Nak is on the fritz, my sanui receiver and altec 9440a only work on 1 channel.
1 speaker is pleasurable to me.
I know, I'm a freak, I don't care.
I did do the barier setp when I had a big pair of vegas. It was neat how the voice was solid and locked directly in front of you (like a single full range driver). And that was with a non time aligned 3-way. Since then, I sunk my $$ into a mono setup, the voice was much better than in a stereo non ambiophonic setup.
If I remember, the ambiophonics has the sound labs u1 that are full range (no crossover) electrostats. No crossovers can get you closer to the music. Time alignment is close though and allow much more decibels.
Norman
I'm a low volume listener now.
I sit 10-12' away in a room probably 16' x 20'
I used to be a crank-o-phile (24db LR active crossover 4-way running a 1038a piezo, ev hr640 / mcm bowtie horn, / ev hr 940 / ev hr90, 2 x 15" crossover points 500-750 and 5khz) alongside 2 dual 18" slot loaded 6th order 18s tuned and boosted at 27hz. That went very loud. My kids said years ago "remember when you told us not to blast it ? We didn't realize it was for our own good." lol
Now I live in an apartment, and I'm older. I don't need 110db to get my thrills, now I want voices to sound real, electrostat clarity, detail, and low volume dynamics. And superior intelligibility. Full rangers get me there. Speed and detail. Or the prat, pace, rhythm and timing.
I enjoy headphones but don't like the image in my head thing.
I currently use a dual 4" bamboo tang band speaker run wide open (loudness button compensates for baffle step, qtc .45) and I run 80hz f-mod to a pair of eminence magnum 15lf (8ft3 tuned to 30hz). I liked my old model 03 or 04 thiels but the midrange in my dual 4" is cleaner, better, and more transparant. More real and fleshy.
I don't use a barrier, I just use a single speaker mono.
If I want to blast it, I hook up a dbx 321 active crossover and use anywhere from 200hz to 500hz. But the crossover with its cheap opamps and multiple coupling caps (prob electrolytic) destroy the transparancy of the full range driver. Sometimes I hook up a tweet horn or a piezo, but usually a day or 2 later, I go back to the simple dual 4" with no crossover.
Adding a 10 band equalizer sucked the life out of my open baffle w3-871s. Clarity was lost along with detail and a bit of magic. All the extra electronics added a haze that put me further from the music. I remember hearing the loss in clarity running a pioneer b20 (wide open) versus using my electronic crossover set for 200hz. The crossover stayed in that setup for about 1 minute. It added a glassy, grainy haze to everything. Yes there are better active crossovers but marchands arn't cheap, and then I'd need a preamp. I like my nakamichi stasis receiver, it sounds wonderfull with its lack of global feedback, smooth and detailed.
Full range drivers typically do the stereo thing wonderfully.
I can only speak of the 2 w3-871s on open baffle. It was neat seeing everyone smile when they listened to it, hearing crickets way outside of where the speakers were sitting directly infront of their face !!!!!!! Also being so close to the panel, there was zero dipole cancellation. But not when you took a couple of steps back.
I usually have a few diy speakers in process or in the wings.
Too many proofs of concept and always trying new drivers and setups. My Nak is on the fritz, my sanui receiver and altec 9440a only work on 1 channel.
1 speaker is pleasurable to me.
I know, I'm a freak, I don't care.
I did do the barier setp when I had a big pair of vegas. It was neat how the voice was solid and locked directly in front of you (like a single full range driver). And that was with a non time aligned 3-way. Since then, I sunk my $$ into a mono setup, the voice was much better than in a stereo non ambiophonic setup.
If I remember, the ambiophonics has the sound labs u1 that are full range (no crossover) electrostats. No crossovers can get you closer to the music. Time alignment is close though and allow much more decibels.
Norman