Hehe, CLS, do you think I am myself an expert?
I am already very happy to have captured something coherent and showing a difference in/outdoor.
The similarity is the two sharp lateral zones covering grossly 120°.
The difference is what's in the middle projected in front for the indoor, projected backward for the outdoor.
Now, we have to take care of the "absolutely obvious" interpretations as we are not specialists here.
Actually, it's just safe to say "there is a stereo field outdoor", and "the difference between the two records is the expression of the reflections that put the field in the good place when indoor".
We need a pro advice. Any ?
I am already very happy to have captured something coherent and showing a difference in/outdoor.
The similarity is the two sharp lateral zones covering grossly 120°.
The difference is what's in the middle projected in front for the indoor, projected backward for the outdoor.
Now, we have to take care of the "absolutely obvious" interpretations as we are not specialists here.
Actually, it's just safe to say "there is a stereo field outdoor", and "the difference between the two records is the expression of the reflections that put the field in the good place when indoor".
We need a pro advice. Any ?
Last edited:
not really because the screen is there just to make the blown up image visible, to continue the visual analogy - even a bare wall can serve as a screen - You needn't any special screen to see what is there
fortunately visual analogy ends where important differences between sense of vision and sense of hearing come into ...eerr the picture
(i am running short of my English 
) it is because sense of hearing is much more selective - processed as relevant are only those data that fit best into the overall ...eerr picture
everything else is filtered out and doesn't reach the level of our conscious experience
this is why in case of sound projector we need not any special screen to have best results, just anything goes
in most cases particular charactestics of the screen (the listening room) will be filtered out by ear-brain system
but - surely there are extreme cases - placing the projector in such a way that it can't make effective use of the screen eg. deep in the corner, between tall furniture, extremely asymmetrically or a case of an overdamped, very dead room etc.
another extreme case would be a very dry recording, lacking in ambient/spatial cues - in such a case room acoustics would take over
but one thing is certain - resulting particular sound image created in a given circumstances - better or worse - by a stereolith-like device is very robust, essentially the same irrespective of the listener's position - You can walk around the room and the sound is just there
best,
graaf
Thanks for explanation
However in my recent experiments, I found the basic symmetry of the room is essential to the side firing setup - i.e., the Stereolith style.
I had briefly tried side-firing tweeter horns. The asymmetry of my room got troubles with it - reflections from both sides are not at the same timing and amplitude, thus shifted images. Up-firing is much better, the almost flat ceiling is a much simpler and uniform reflective surface.
So, the 'screen' is indeed important. At least to some extent. And the localization in the lateral direction plays a major role in imaging, so inevitably we need symmetric (in left-right) room to get good performance.
I'm not sure how 'extreme' of the asymmetry people can take. For me, I've been struggling against it for quite a while, even with ordinary speakers. Oh, ok, not so ordinary, they are horns and OB. I'm fighting with the asymmetry by large toe-in and some helps from the channel balance control in digital domain....
However in my recent experiments, I found the basic symmetry of the room is essential to the side firing setup - i.e., the Stereolith style.
I had briefly tried side-firing tweeter horns. The asymmetry of my room got troubles with it - reflections from both sides are not at the same timing and amplitude, thus shifted images. Up-firing is much better, the almost flat ceiling is a much simpler and uniform reflective surface.
So, the 'screen' is indeed important. At least to some extent. And the localization in the lateral direction plays a major role in imaging, so inevitably we need symmetric (in left-right) room to get good performance.
I'm not sure how 'extreme' of the asymmetry people can take. For me, I've been struggling against it for quite a while, even with ordinary speakers. Oh, ok, not so ordinary, they are horns and OB. I'm fighting with the asymmetry by large toe-in and some helps from the channel balance control in digital domain....
Thanks for explanation
well, I wouldn't dare to call it explanation
it's just my understanding, it seems reasonable to me after my own experiments and experiments of others and in the light of what is known about how our sense of hearing works
perhaps side-firing of tweeters that aren't positioned in the centre (this is Your case?) is a configuration significantly different from stereolith configuration in the strict sense, perhaps side-firing only is not enough
I cannot argue
As You probably know up-firing is exactly my way
sure the more symmetry the better
best,
graaf
Hey, I admit my side firing setup was far from ideal for sure. Maybe the two horns were not close enough, spaced by 1m or so, along with all kinds of other problems.... Pity I got so many practical issues, thus only very limited trials.
Nevertheless it's full of fun along the journey. Thanks for all your free minds and brilliant talents on this
Nevertheless it's full of fun along the journey. Thanks for all your free minds and brilliant talents on this
looks like another implementation of mr Schupbach's patents:
OE-One® Swiss Loudspeakers, enceintes stéréophoniques exclusives fabriquées en Suisse depuis 1994.
CLUB DES FANS DE L'OE-ONE - Enceintes
meanwhile in one of my old posts on a Polish forum I found a listening report by user of original Stereolith model Monitor 232:
"I was very pleased by the Stereolith's stunning arranging of the sound stage. Expressions like "holographic" or "3D" come to mind. When listening to some one-point recordings I could hardly believe how well the Stereolith reproduced the SIZE of the stage; the walls virtually disappeared and made room for whoever was performing, both on recordings of small ensembles and large orchestras. This sense of size went all through the audition, and never did the Monitor 230 over-size instruments, not even close-miked drum kits.
If you choose the "best" points in your room for both the Stereolith and your comfy chair, spacing and projection becomes extraordinary. The Stereolith manages to reproduce the dimensions and depth of recordings as diverse as Duruflé's Requiem, J.S. Bach's Art of Fugue, and CD by the Joe Maneri Quartet. Fantômas sounds terminally frightening, and Type- O-Negative fills the whole room with layered sound reminiscent of a Dolby Surround system. Be it solo cembalo or Rage Against the Machine, Nine Inch Nails or Fauré, Ligeti or Primus--the Monitor system always works like a charm. Even Scelsi's large-scale choir pieces... I think you get the picture."
unfortunately the original source - www.audioweb.com is no longer there, my post is from 2006
OE-One® Swiss Loudspeakers, enceintes stéréophoniques exclusives fabriquées en Suisse depuis 1994.
CLUB DES FANS DE L'OE-ONE - Enceintes
meanwhile in one of my old posts on a Polish forum I found a listening report by user of original Stereolith model Monitor 232:
"I was very pleased by the Stereolith's stunning arranging of the sound stage. Expressions like "holographic" or "3D" come to mind. When listening to some one-point recordings I could hardly believe how well the Stereolith reproduced the SIZE of the stage; the walls virtually disappeared and made room for whoever was performing, both on recordings of small ensembles and large orchestras. This sense of size went all through the audition, and never did the Monitor 230 over-size instruments, not even close-miked drum kits.
If you choose the "best" points in your room for both the Stereolith and your comfy chair, spacing and projection becomes extraordinary. The Stereolith manages to reproduce the dimensions and depth of recordings as diverse as Duruflé's Requiem, J.S. Bach's Art of Fugue, and CD by the Joe Maneri Quartet. Fantômas sounds terminally frightening, and Type- O-Negative fills the whole room with layered sound reminiscent of a Dolby Surround system. Be it solo cembalo or Rage Against the Machine, Nine Inch Nails or Fauré, Ligeti or Primus--the Monitor system always works like a charm. Even Scelsi's large-scale choir pieces... I think you get the picture."
unfortunately the original source - www.audioweb.com is no longer there, my post is from 2006
another stereolitic concept, this time from Japan:
M's System
surely it looks cheap and primitive and it is impossible to judge the quality by youtube clips but it clearly creates a kind of big soundstage and provokes some enthusiastic reactions, for instance the description below this clip:
YouTube - ??????????
says:
"This space and this sound… it is splendid"
M's System
surely it looks cheap and primitive and it is impossible to judge the quality by youtube clips but it clearly creates a kind of big soundstage and provokes some enthusiastic reactions, for instance the description below this clip:
YouTube - ??????????
says:
"This space and this sound… it is splendid"
Attachments
hello markus
Thanks for the humor you put in the so serious "Flat is not correct..." thread.
I wish we could continue having good time like this.
Well, I've been playing a lot with this enigmatic concept. Whatever it's performance, it's a goldmine for knownledge.
you quote a Scott's post (I can agree with all what he said) about the direct sound.
When measured indoor, I just have to look at the impulse: the main part is the reflected sound that arrives of course with a delay proportional to the room width(20 ms for me).
Using a supravox, this reflected sound is the reflect of the on axis curve of the driver: all the highs are here (that's why I had to delay the tweeter so much in my first approach).
This is an anti constant directivity design.
But, I confirm that it can produce a sound stage outside, without side wall reflections. Moderate width with ordinary records, very wide with binaural records or tests with phase tricks.
I actually use a passive filter. I loose the benefits of the EQ, but this filter is less reflection dependent than the digital delayed one. Like this, the speaker works even in dissymetric situations.
let us know your firts findings
Thanks for the humor you put in the so serious "Flat is not correct..." thread.
I wish we could continue having good time like this.
Well, I've been playing a lot with this enigmatic concept. Whatever it's performance, it's a goldmine for knownledge.
you quote a Scott's post (I can agree with all what he said) about the direct sound.
When measured indoor, I just have to look at the impulse: the main part is the reflected sound that arrives of course with a delay proportional to the room width(20 ms for me).
Using a supravox, this reflected sound is the reflect of the on axis curve of the driver: all the highs are here (that's why I had to delay the tweeter so much in my first approach).
This is an anti constant directivity design.
But, I confirm that it can produce a sound stage outside, without side wall reflections. Moderate width with ordinary records, very wide with binaural records or tests with phase tricks.
I actually use a passive filter. I loose the benefits of the EQ, but this filter is less reflection dependent than the digital delayed one. Like this, the speaker works even in dissymetric situations.
let us know your firts findings
"Look" in this case is a conceptual question.
The driver becomes more directive at higher freq.s, freq.s that not incidentally are related to lateral cues of recorded sound sources and recorded/processed reflections of those sound sources. (..in that most drivers of this size start beaming above 2 kHz.)
If you were to "look" at any frontal discreet axis, these freq.s would be "missing in action" - i.e. very attenuated.
The difference is that we hear the entire sound field (or dispersion pattern), so they aren't really missing, but as an average they may be attenuated in level. Of course the average for these higher freq.s, as a matter of perceived freq. "balance", is increased in spl due to interaction with side walls - so the upper freq. average may not be quite so attenuated in level relative to those freq.s below 1 kHz.
Again though, we hear the entire pattern. The "average" largely references the perception of freq. balance, NOT lateral cues.
For lateral cues (largely complex harmonics above 2 kHz), the loss in pressure of reproduced DIRECT SOUND between the 2 drivers has some interesting results:
1. The effect is similar to cross-talk cancellation at these higher freq.s.
2. Because of the pattern's higher spl's at 90 degrees relative to the forward plane at higher freq.s, ambient information (venue reflections real or processed) becomes "enhanced" relative to recorded sound sources. (..or perhaps you could say that recorded sound sources become "suppressed".) (..historical note: this is the major reason for Roy Allison's pursuit of very wide dispersion tweeters: wider dispersion generally results in a better perceived recorded venue - at least the part contributed by upper freq. reflections.)
Last edited:
Well thanks Scotty but your analysis doesn't answer why it works because we basically don't know how the stereolith works. Are the side firing drivers wired in phase or out of phase? Are there additional circuits besides the crossover?
What we know are the specs:
Two side firing 5" driver crossed over at 2.8kHz to a single front facing tweeter.
What we know are the specs:
Two side firing 5" driver crossed over at 2.8kHz to a single front facing tweeter.
do we know why and how conventional stereo triangle works, especially why sometimes it works better and sometimes worse?
do we know?
From what was posted I had the impression that you guys know more. So what about answers to more trivial questions like stereolith signal flow and possible additional filtering? Have you listened to the stereolith since yesterday?
By the way, project monosphere™ (which likely will be renamed to stereosphere™) has reached a major milestone. The prototype code-named "honeycomb" is up and running:
By the way, project monosphere™ (which likely will be renamed to stereosphere™) has reached a major milestone. The prototype code-named "honeycomb" is up and running:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Last edited:
Yes, it does answer "why it works". My response correlates the system's dispersion patterns with hearing.
As to how the stereolith *operates*, that has already largely been answered - posts 32 and 34 of this thread. (..the ad. copy of "dipole" simply means two poles, from the prefix "di" meaning two. This is not dissimilar to the confusion around the ad.'s use of "diffusion". Neither is marketing BS, rather the use of each word is less scientific.)
It's highly unlikely there is lowpass to the mid-bass drivers. There could however be correction network for the baffle (..in fact I'd say it's likely that there is a correction network).
For the high pass filter of the tweeter "crossed over" at 2.8 kHz could be misleading, at least electrically.
How can you possibly know the dispersion pattern if you don't know what the crossover really looks like?
Are these facts from people that actually tested the device or just assumptions how it might operate?
Why is it "highly unlikely there is lowpass to the mid-bass drivers"?
And why is a 2.8kHz high pass electronically misleading?
P.S. Glasgal is pretty confident that this kind of speaker does NOT employ any crosstalk cancellation.
Last edited:
1. I don't *know* what the specific dispersion pattern for the stereolith is. I do however understand the concept, and I reasonably "know" what a driver's dispersion pattern is like depending on it's diameter.
But sure, if it has a low pass filter on the mid-bass, then the stereolith is not operating as I understand the concept.
2. Educated assumptions. Also, like many others (..and presumably yourself), I've personally tried this concept (..but both inside my home and outside.)
3. It's highly unlikely because of the design concept - if in fact that concept is being utilized. As for the high-pass filter - just a hunch.
I don't believe there is any processed cross-talk cancellation occurring for this design. Rather I think the *effect* is similar. In one respect it most certainly is - combing.
..and now I'll pose a question:
Why do you have an interest in this loudspeaker?
But sure, if it has a low pass filter on the mid-bass, then the stereolith is not operating as I understand the concept.
2. Educated assumptions. Also, like many others (..and presumably yourself), I've personally tried this concept (..but both inside my home and outside.)
3. It's highly unlikely because of the design concept - if in fact that concept is being utilized. As for the high-pass filter - just a hunch.
I don't believe there is any processed cross-talk cancellation occurring for this design. Rather I think the *effect* is similar. In one respect it most certainly is - combing.
..and now I'll pose a question:
Why do you have an interest in this loudspeaker?
Last edited: