Elias said:
I KNOW
I would just like to draw Your attention to the question "pinna localisation of WHAT"
I understand that those contradictory cues are between virtual sound sources and real sound sources - the loudspeakers themselves
if We consider the loudspeakers as "early reflections of a sound whose direct version we missed" than where is the problem of contradictory cues?
what can be contradictory cues between the sound whose direct version we missed and reflection of it?
after all all information is carried by those reflections
best!
graaf
Re: Re: Stereolith Loudspeakers Question
unfunded assertions, wrong conclusions
yes of course!
as I posted above:
BUT
WHO CARES when it WORKS?
after all we are not in this hobby for "assertions and conclusions" but for listening to music reproduced as lifelike as possible!
ask me, el`Ol and others
the proof of the puding is in the eating! not in assertions, not in conclusions!
best regards!
graaf
markus76 said:
unfunded assertions, wrong conclusions
yes of course!
as I posted above:
BUT
WHO CARES when it WORKS?
after all we are not in this hobby for "assertions and conclusions" but for listening to music reproduced as lifelike as possible!
ask me, el`Ol and others
the proof of the puding is in the eating! not in assertions, not in conclusions!
best regards!
graaf
I just brought my Carlsson prototypes in Stereolith position again to experiment with a dipole component (L-a R, R-a L) and found no substantial improvement. Then I tried an allpass on one channel to limit the dipole effect to the ~ 1-2kHz region, where the human ear ist most sensitive, and instead of producing (as I expected) a weird psychedelic effect it made the instruments more "lifelike". So I find with this measure the SLS is ahead of the ambiophonics-baffle, but still behind the two, lets say, "controlled reflection" setups.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Stereolith Loudspeakers Question
without listening??!
without even trying?
You haven't listened and only judge by "assertions and conclusions"??!
Do You always do that?
I had once similar amusing situation here in Poland
one very competent sound engineer, chief engineer at one of two Polish biggest nation-wide radio stations "disagreed" without listening
it took me a lot of effort and patience to persuade him to try stereolit like set up
finally He did it
He disagrees no more
is Your hobby about "assertions and conclusions"?
Dou You "know everything" and because of that You don't like to experiment?
best regards!
graaf
markus76 said:
Ask me and other and we disagree
without listening??!
without even trying?
You haven't listened and only judge by "assertions and conclusions"??!
Do You always do that?
I had once similar amusing situation here in Poland
one very competent sound engineer, chief engineer at one of two Polish biggest nation-wide radio stations "disagreed" without listening
it took me a lot of effort and patience to persuade him to try stereolit like set up
finally He did it
He disagrees no more
is Your hobby about "assertions and conclusions"?
Dou You "know everything" and because of that You don't like to experiment?
best regards!
graaf
el`Ol said:
actually I never managed to compare them methodically side by side
I turn to CFS because SLS fails miserably with incompatible recordings
without distance/ambience cues in the recording - without natural or artificial reverb - it produces literally no soundstage
it was very frustrating
now I think that perhaps a reverb processor could help in case of such defective recordings?
with suitable recordings I would say that SLS was best I have heard so far
I turn to CFS along the same wall as a solution offering more compatibility with recordings, a compromise
alas in result of changes in my listening room arrangement I am not able to test the Beveridge like set up (on opposite walls - picture I attached to my first post in the "Loudspeakers an Room" thread) of CFS
and I suspect that it could equal or even beat the SLS with the same recordings maintainig good compatibility with all kinds of recordings
perhaps I will be able to try corner set up, I will report my results
best regards!
graaf
markus76 said:
o yes?
How low is low D/R?
How completely is completely?
You are so authoritative in so absolute manner
yeah - I was right - You truly know everything
markus76 said:
yeah yeah - obviously I have
and You are obviously authoritatively judging speakers and set ups without listening
that is something!
and You know everything
I am impressed
good luck!
graaf
Hello,
I never understood Moulton's reasoning it being same as direct sound missing. How can you localise a sound source behind a corner? Because that is effectively the situation if you take out the direct sound, you are behind a corner.
What are the other methods you are refering to?
- Elias
graaf said:
I never understood Moulton's reasoning it being same as direct sound missing. How can you localise a sound source behind a corner? Because that is effectively the situation if you take out the direct sound, you are behind a corner.
What are the other methods you are refering to?
- Elias
Hello,
Graaf wrote:
"off course crosstalk is not really cancelled but it's negative effect is sufficiently diminished
but of course a question - how?
well, what about directivity of a dynamic driver on a baffle?"
Well, directivity of the speaker element would then make sound go towards side wall, and the first (i.e. 'direct') sound would come from the reflection which would be at even higher angle from median plane than in stereo would have
-> pinna error is even worse.
- Elias
Graaf wrote:
"off course crosstalk is not really cancelled but it's negative effect is sufficiently diminished
but of course a question - how?
well, what about directivity of a dynamic driver on a baffle?"
Well, directivity of the speaker element would then make sound go towards side wall, and the first (i.e. 'direct') sound would come from the reflection which would be at even higher angle from median plane than in stereo would have
-> pinna error is even worse.
- Elias
Hello,
If we take out the direct sound, then we don't know where the sound is originally coming from, right?
Reflections do not carry all the information, because we cannot assume that we have precise knowledge of the space those reflections are produced. A space will produce an early reflection pattern. But more than one space can produce same early reflection pattern. So from reflections only we cannot define the space and so we don't know the location the initial sound event took place.
We will define the space in our brain by hearing the direct sound AND reflections alltogether, but cannot do with either alone.
- Elias
graaf said:
If we take out the direct sound, then we don't know where the sound is originally coming from, right?
Reflections do not carry all the information, because we cannot assume that we have precise knowledge of the space those reflections are produced. A space will produce an early reflection pattern. But more than one space can produce same early reflection pattern. So from reflections only we cannot define the space and so we don't know the location the initial sound event took place.
We will define the space in our brain by hearing the direct sound AND reflections alltogether, but cannot do with either alone.
- Elias
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.