How to make a valid comparison, stereo never worked for meBefore it was image jumping from tweeter to tweeter with head turning or movement, terrible tonal errors when not exactly in the midline, not much sense of space but, as I say, dull sound.
Now all of this has been corrected. Brand new world !
- Elias
So you didn't perceive stable phantom images at all (when sitting in the sweet spot)?
right Elias!
PS. @Rudolf
obviously WRONG
actually rather some small patches of reflecting material are needed
for instance take a look at this:
The Studio SOS Guide To Monitoring & Acoustic Treatment
and at the drawing attached below
then replace in the linked text the expression unwanted reflections with wanted reflections and place reflecting patches at mirror points instead of absorbers or diffusors
piece of cake, isn't it?
best,
graaf
PS. @Rudolf
obviously WRONG
actually rather some small patches of reflecting material are needed
for instance take a look at this:
The Studio SOS Guide To Monitoring & Acoustic Treatment
and at the drawing attached below
then replace in the linked text the expression unwanted reflections with wanted reflections and place reflecting patches at mirror points instead of absorbers or diffusors
piece of cake, isn't it?
best,
graaf
Attachments
and MIND YOU ALL - that is a sacrosanct value in itself
of course 
for my part I can tell that lateral (L-R) position of phantom images match exactly their lateral (L-R) position when listened to through headphones
this is a bit like externalised headphone listening, it is all there but not in Your head - in front of You instead
I cannot say this about conventional stereo triangle setup, it sucks
for my part I can tell that I perceive stable phantom images in the sweet spot of a stereo triangle
but I can also tell that their stability is nothing that can be really compared to stablility of stable phantom images in a bipolar stereo setup
BTW - how is Stereosphere that has lost it's (TM)?
Last edited:
Oh I did, in some occasions yes sure. Was it satisfactory, no. There is a difference of being able to hear a sound coming from a direction and being convinced that it is real sound source somewhere there making the sound. Stereo did produce perceivable phantom locations but it never sounded real to me. Stereo wasn't convincing enough to be enjoyable. Now analysing stereo from this perspective what I'm doing here it is not hard to understand (for me) why it would be so.
- Elias
I agree but wouldn't it be nice to have both? That's probably beyond the scope of our little pizza box. So let's concentrate on making it better.
..and perspective is everything.
Just to "highlight" that we all hear a bit differently. I can get reasonably good results from a broad variety of good loudspeakers/transducers. And oddly, the barrier approaches I've tried (mattress and separate rooms) don't do really do anything. My "processor" compensates.
I can also hear what I deem as "better" qualities from a room or hall away. (..these "better" qualities I'd describe as improved transient capability/clarity and spaciousness - irrespective of the room.)
we HAVE BOTH Markus
and still we ARE in fact working to make it even better, would You believe?
OTOH I don't know what You are doing as there have been no reports from You for quite a while...
but from what You say about not having both it looks that Stereosphere with or without (TM) still sucks, it's a pity
Last edited:
And oddly, the barrier approaches I've tried (mattress and separate rooms) don't do really do anything. My "processor" compensates.
but You have never tried back-to-back with those Brociner deflectors (as we can rightly call them in honour of this great engineer and originator of the idea) that can be seen on pictures posted by Radugazon? Have You?
Last edited:
Yes it may not be that this box is the ultimate solution as such (and The Cardboard certainly not considering it's construction) but this has given me the information and concept of:
How the signal from a recording should be presented to the listener in a domestic room !
- Elias
Along this path I've presented the view that in case of The Cardboard the direct sound is an error, as there are good reasons for eliminating the direct sound for improved performance.
Of course everyone remembers Moulton and his reasoning the stereo reproduction is a set of reflections of which direct sound we missed.. What if he was correct all along.. 
- Elias
Of course everyone remembers Moulton and his reasoning the stereo reproduction is a set of reflections of which direct sound we missed.. What if he was correct all along.. - Elias
well, in spite of this: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/103813-objectives-loudspeaker-small-room-2.html#post1240797
I was never 100% convinced that conventional stereo actually works in that way, but it sort of doesn't work at all so...
but this Brociner's bipolar stereo seems to work in that way indeed, when the loudspeaker as a separate, localizable source of sound is effectively taken out of the picture
perhaps Moulton's theory is more about how it ought to be done?
anyway wise men are quick to tell You that Moulton's just got his marketing agenda with Beolab 5
Last edited:
Experimenting with the principle reminded me what spaciousness really means. It also reminds me of how easy it is to screw things up. If the reflections aren't controlled and if there are too many "wrong" reflections, the sound is just awful. No clarity, no detail, no transparency, just muddy. No amount of spaciousness does make that sound right. Like in concert hall acoustics there seems to be some kind of desirable small room acoustics that works well with our pizza box and common stereo recordings. Damping the whole front wall helped tremendously. Symmetry is also very important.
I read about Moulton 'theory' long before Bose bougth his patent, but I'm not sure if the 'acoustic lens' is optimal. Because it will spray the sound all over the room without a clever strategy.
Actually most of the stereo speakers also do it totally wrong by illunating mostly the contralateral wall which makes the first lateral reflection to come from the wrong side ! Some even suggest using toe-in which makes this even worse.
- Elias
Actually most of the stereo speakers also do it totally wrong by illunating mostly the contralateral wall which makes the first lateral reflection to come from the wrong side ! Some even suggest using toe-in which makes this even worse.
- Elias
No. And yes.. But mostly No.
I've tried several different speakers in the back to back configuration (after the bookshelfs), one pair of which were two-ways with Horns. However I've always found that if you can't actually see the driver in the waveguide, that imaging becomes too diffuse (and if I remember correctly - "phasey" in this application).
Though a bit different, for me it didn't *pan*-out.
In my normal classically furnitured and decorated living room suitable for a European style of living, I did not encounter major problems with The Cardboard.
I did not specifically damp the front wall (the wall facing the listener), but then I do have heavyish curtains there. Maybe enough?
I find it is beneficial to place The Cardboard along the longitudal symmetryline of the room, but the listening position is much less critical than in normal stereo.
- Elias
I had it set up in two different rooms. One 4.50m x 10m x 2.50m with damped front wall, the other 3.80 x 4.10 x 2.50m, undamped. The small room sounded awful. Damping the room helped a lot although the virtual sound stage doesn't really "open up". Maybe the reflections arrive too early (first side wall reflection is 6.7ms).
what is it? TIE fighter? any details of the setup? position in the room, distance to the listener and so on?