It is a great pleasure for me to read that you, who gave me all the inspiations to the array- project have some questions to me!
Please don`t overrate my knowledge, I made just some experiences for my ears and my individual setup which may not be transferable to other setups. So I could imagine that the beam- behaviour off axis is not ideal and results in colorations if the arrays are near to a wall. But this aspect was not relevant for me because of the freely and diagonal placing. Other setups may deliver other results.
Acourate is indeed a big tool, which helps enormus to understand the different effects.
Example XTC: I placed a mic-capsule to the left ear, measured signal from the left speakerand then the signal from the right speaker , also in the left ear.
Take acourate -amplutude funktion: r-l and you have your individual HRTF for triangular setup. Then convolving with the original speaker correction phase inversion, gain and delay- roting and you are ready with the first XTR filter. The second and third filter you have once more to convolve with the HRTF, delay etc. etc. and to route in the acourate convolver. So you can build your own RACE-algorihm-based XTR filter.
I just have to recommend acourate as the most flexible and scientific room correction software I know. Problems with the bass in small rooms? build a virtual antibass- filter- no problem with acourate! Or build the perfect digital crossover with acourate!
IACC: I am sorry I don`t know another software to measure the IACC.
I am so sorry that I am a poor man, too and that I don`t have a privat-jet to visit you for a listening session. I have just a 18 year old under-middleclass Toyota so there is no chance to compare our systems.
The effect of the crosstalk device is (in nuances):
-more stability in localisation
-overtones are at the same place as the ground frequence. (1.st violin in a string quartet does not more walk around sligthly)
-more warm, natural and never sharp strings , more defined high-hats
-with intensity- stereophonical recordings the virtual room gets broader (app. 35 degrees outside of the stereo-basis))
-with time-based stereo the room does not change but is a little more deeper)
-in general the performance is more natural and the instruments have more body.
Acourate FLOW is an important tool to make the musik sounding more analog.
I can`t live without it. It makes it much more easy to localise the instruments and their overtons because you can bring them to the same place. ( the effect is similar to the XTR-plate).
This is the problem: The better the stereo-effect, the better you can hear the bad effects which are inherent to stereo recordings.
MS processing I use sometimes to renaturalize online several recordings which were remastered too spacy in my taste.
The test tracks I will listen to in the next days and tell you my experiences.
Have a good time,
Martin
Please don`t overrate my knowledge, I made just some experiences for my ears and my individual setup which may not be transferable to other setups. So I could imagine that the beam- behaviour off axis is not ideal and results in colorations if the arrays are near to a wall. But this aspect was not relevant for me because of the freely and diagonal placing. Other setups may deliver other results.
Acourate is indeed a big tool, which helps enormus to understand the different effects.
Example XTC: I placed a mic-capsule to the left ear, measured signal from the left speakerand then the signal from the right speaker , also in the left ear.
Take acourate -amplutude funktion: r-l and you have your individual HRTF for triangular setup. Then convolving with the original speaker correction phase inversion, gain and delay- roting and you are ready with the first XTR filter. The second and third filter you have once more to convolve with the HRTF, delay etc. etc. and to route in the acourate convolver. So you can build your own RACE-algorihm-based XTR filter.
I just have to recommend acourate as the most flexible and scientific room correction software I know. Problems with the bass in small rooms? build a virtual antibass- filter- no problem with acourate! Or build the perfect digital crossover with acourate!
IACC: I am sorry I don`t know another software to measure the IACC.
I am so sorry that I am a poor man, too and that I don`t have a privat-jet to visit you for a listening session. I have just a 18 year old under-middleclass Toyota so there is no chance to compare our systems.
The effect of the crosstalk device is (in nuances):
-more stability in localisation
-overtones are at the same place as the ground frequence. (1.st violin in a string quartet does not more walk around sligthly)
-more warm, natural and never sharp strings , more defined high-hats
-with intensity- stereophonical recordings the virtual room gets broader (app. 35 degrees outside of the stereo-basis))
-with time-based stereo the room does not change but is a little more deeper)
-in general the performance is more natural and the instruments have more body.
Acourate FLOW is an important tool to make the musik sounding more analog.
I can`t live without it. It makes it much more easy to localise the instruments and their overtons because you can bring them to the same place. ( the effect is similar to the XTR-plate).
This is the problem: The better the stereo-effect, the better you can hear the bad effects which are inherent to stereo recordings.
MS processing I use sometimes to renaturalize online several recordings which were remastered too spacy in my taste.
The test tracks I will listen to in the next days and tell you my experiences.
Have a good time,
Martin
Yey, it's Friday 
Ok, lets go, one track, two versions. I chose a song by Anne Bison. Clear central voice, some spoken words even, generally a good recording.
Both have been extracted in a similar way to minimize side effects. If you like the song, go buy the record please.
Disclaimer: this song is used for a test, it is not my intend to break any copyright rules by providing this song in this way.
Taken from a CD version:
Camillio-A.flac
Camillio-B.flac
(please right click and choose save target as... or any other way to download before actually playing the track)
The only difference is one has it's phase shuffled. The average SPL levels still match, wav length is the same between the two, flac shows a little difference in size.
These two tracks are meant to be judged at ~2.5 to 3.5 meter distance in the exact sweet spot. That's where the difference should be the most obvious. Preferably in an environment without significant early reflections in the first 10 ms. It's also important that the FR curves of the left and right channels are a good match. You guys decide for yourself if you comply to these guidelines. Martin already showed us proof he does comply.
It won't work as well to take this test in a reflective room with (many) early reflections. Stereo is a must.
Can we:
- hear a difference between the two tracks
- If there is a perceived difference, how does it present itself?
- do we prefer one over the other?
I meant to take the test myself, by playing the two tracks in random order as I obviously know which one is which. Sadly I ran out of time to do it. My house is taken over by my son + friend. I'll try and take the test on Monday.
Hope to hear from you guys...
Ok, lets go, one track, two versions. I chose a song by Anne Bison. Clear central voice, some spoken words even, generally a good recording.
Both have been extracted in a similar way to minimize side effects. If you like the song, go buy the record please.
Disclaimer: this song is used for a test, it is not my intend to break any copyright rules by providing this song in this way.
Taken from a CD version:
Camillio-A.flac
Camillio-B.flac
(please right click and choose save target as... or any other way to download before actually playing the track)
The only difference is one has it's phase shuffled. The average SPL levels still match, wav length is the same between the two, flac shows a little difference in size.
These two tracks are meant to be judged at ~2.5 to 3.5 meter distance in the exact sweet spot. That's where the difference should be the most obvious. Preferably in an environment without significant early reflections in the first 10 ms. It's also important that the FR curves of the left and right channels are a good match. You guys decide for yourself if you comply to these guidelines. Martin already showed us proof he does comply
.It won't work as well to take this test in a reflective room with (many) early reflections. Stereo is a must.
Can we:
- hear a difference between the two tracks
- If there is a perceived difference, how does it present itself?
- do we prefer one over the other?
I meant to take the test myself, by playing the two tracks in random order as I obviously know which one is which. Sadly I ran out of time to do it. My house is taken over by my son + friend
. I'll try and take the test on Monday.Hope to hear from you guys...
Last edited:
It's too late for me to fire up the system, so, I had to listen with headphones with the not-so-great DAC for now. Tomorrow, I'll play it with speakers in a room.
First impression with headphones... A and B have different tonality. B sounded fake to me. A was warm and fuzzy. Even though I usually like clean and precise (almost clinical), in this case, I would take warm and fuzzy over the B sample song, which was too scalpel like cutting... and the tone was off, as I also have that CD and like the way I have it set, which is not like the B sample, which is more "clinical" but the tone is off, in my mind anyway.
Her voice just asks for warm and sultry... so even though sample A was not exactly clean and precise, I would prefer to listen to A than B.
I'll have a better listen tomorrow.
Thanks for this opportunity!
First impression with headphones... A and B have different tonality. B sounded fake to me. A was warm and fuzzy. Even though I usually like clean and precise (almost clinical), in this case, I would take warm and fuzzy over the B sample song, which was too scalpel like cutting... and the tone was off, as I also have that CD and like the way I have it set, which is not like the B sample, which is more "clinical" but the tone is off, in my mind anyway.
Her voice just asks for warm and sultry... so even though sample A was not exactly clean and precise, I would prefer to listen to A than B.
I'll have a better listen tomorrow.
Thanks for this opportunity!
These two tracks are meant to be judged at ~2.5 to 3.5 meter distance in the exact sweet spot. That's where the difference should be the most obvious. Preferably in an environment without significant early reflections in the first 10 ms. It's also important that the FR curves of the left and right channels are a good match. You guys decide for yourself if you comply to these guidelines. Martin already showed us proof he does comply
It won't work as well to take this test in a reflective room with (many) early reflections. Stereo is a must.
Sitting with a headphone at 2.5 to 3 m distance from your desk doesn't count
.Thanks for playing though!
Hi guys. Sorry to switch topics, but I'm rolling along with my designs and could use some feedback. Still working on my translam 2-way sealed box design. I am working on a re-do without the constrained layers, I am taking the advice given and plan on just gluing all of the layers together. I am also working on a bit more interesting shape.
I could use some advice on the baffle. I have some really cool faux-marble Corial material, just enough for the two baffles. However it is only 1/2" (12.7mm) thick. I also have some 1/8" (3.2mm) aluminum sheet. Would this Corian work or is it not thick enough? Would layering the Corian and aluminum work well? I think the aluminum would provide a nice rigid base for the driver bolts, but I wonder if the total baffle thickness of only 16mm is enough for the cabinet. Also, would you just bolt the Corian and aluminum directly together or add a layer of neoprene or another constraining material?
As always, thanks for the advice!
I could use some advice on the baffle. I have some really cool faux-marble Corial material, just enough for the two baffles. However it is only 1/2" (12.7mm) thick. I also have some 1/8" (3.2mm) aluminum sheet. Would this Corian work or is it not thick enough? Would layering the Corian and aluminum work well? I think the aluminum would provide a nice rigid base for the driver bolts, but I wonder if the total baffle thickness of only 16mm is enough for the cabinet. Also, would you just bolt the Corian and aluminum directly together or add a layer of neoprene or another constraining material?
As always, thanks for the advice!
It would largely depend on what you want to accomplish.
I'd probably use a CLD layer glued between the two. But I'd also use a (damping) seal between the baffle and enclosure.
What I wanted to accomplish was a bit different from your proposed baffle/speaker construction.
I wanted to have the drivers firmly bolted to a stiff aluminium plate and have that entire construction "float" between two (CLD) damping layers without direct contact to the enclosure. So any vibration in the drivers would not make it into the enclosure, at least that was the idea behind it.
How are you going to mount the driver to the baffle? And the baffle to the enclosure? What are the goals of this construction, other than having a firm baffle?
3.2mm aluminium is very thin though. How about bolting that directly to the driver, have a neoprene layer on both sides of the aluminium and clamping both between the Corian front and another similar material behind the Aluminium? It's still thin though, for that function...
I can see using it as a part of a constrained layer like the thin alu foil on damping sheets for the metal in cars.
I'm guessing you want something that would avoid having to use bolts in the Corian front? At least for the drivers...
You're proposing to work with 2 dissimilar materials. That's not a bad thing in itself. But it's hard to predict what it does once you combine those two. As both are relatively stiff materials I'd go for a constraining layer between them.
But this still leaves you with the question how to mount the driver. As the driver frame will have it's own set of resonances.
Adding weight will push resonances down, making it stiffer will push resonances up... where do you want them. Both have been done before.
Just thinking out loud by the way... I have no real useful answer for you here...
I hope the translam will work out. No idea if it will hold up, like I said before. I can't advise you on how to do that either.
I'd probably use a CLD layer glued between the two. But I'd also use a (damping) seal between the baffle and enclosure.
What I wanted to accomplish was a bit different from your proposed baffle/speaker construction.
I wanted to have the drivers firmly bolted to a stiff aluminium plate and have that entire construction "float" between two (CLD) damping layers without direct contact to the enclosure. So any vibration in the drivers would not make it into the enclosure, at least that was the idea behind it.
How are you going to mount the driver to the baffle? And the baffle to the enclosure? What are the goals of this construction, other than having a firm baffle?
3.2mm aluminium is very thin though. How about bolting that directly to the driver, have a neoprene layer on both sides of the aluminium and clamping both between the Corian front and another similar material behind the Aluminium? It's still thin though, for that function...
I can see using it as a part of a constrained layer like the thin alu foil on damping sheets for the metal in cars.
I'm guessing you want something that would avoid having to use bolts in the Corian front? At least for the drivers...
You're proposing to work with 2 dissimilar materials. That's not a bad thing in itself. But it's hard to predict what it does once you combine those two. As both are relatively stiff materials I'd go for a constraining layer between them.
But this still leaves you with the question how to mount the driver. As the driver frame will have it's own set of resonances.
Adding weight will push resonances down, making it stiffer will push resonances up... where do you want them
. Both have been done before.Just thinking out loud by the way... I have no real useful answer for you here...
I hope the translam will work out. No idea if it will hold up, like I said before. I can't advise you on how to do that either
.
Last edited:
Thanks for the quick reply Ronald!
So I'm okay with exposed bolts for both the drivers and the baffle mount to the cabinet. I am not ready to get into covering the driver bolts and messing with waveguides at this point. The layering was strictly for stiffness using materials that I have. I am "baffled" on what to do with the baffle!
I am on board with constrained layering. Perhaps I just need to invest is thicker aluminum -perhaps 3/8" (9.5mm) or even 1/2" (12.7mm)? So it would be an outer layer of 1/2" Corian; a 1/8" layer of neoprene; a 3/8"-1/2" layer of aluminum; another 1/8" layer of neoprene; all bolted to the cabinet body. The drivers would be recessed into the Corian and their mounting bolts would pass through Corian>Neoprene>Aluminum to nuts mounted on the the aluminum baffle back.
Am I getting way too complicated for my first design/build? Am I better off just doing the baffle out of 2 glued layers of the 3/4" Baltic birch that the cabinet will be made from? That would be way easier and cheaper at this point.
So I'm okay with exposed bolts for both the drivers and the baffle mount to the cabinet. I am not ready to get into covering the driver bolts and messing with waveguides at this point. The layering was strictly for stiffness using materials that I have. I am "baffled" on what to do with the baffle!
I am on board with constrained layering. Perhaps I just need to invest is thicker aluminum -perhaps 3/8" (9.5mm) or even 1/2" (12.7mm)? So it would be an outer layer of 1/2" Corian; a 1/8" layer of neoprene; a 3/8"-1/2" layer of aluminum; another 1/8" layer of neoprene; all bolted to the cabinet body. The drivers would be recessed into the Corian and their mounting bolts would pass through Corian>Neoprene>Aluminum to nuts mounted on the the aluminum baffle back.
Am I getting way too complicated for my first design/build? Am I better off just doing the baffle out of 2 glued layers of the 3/4" Baltic birch that the cabinet will be made from? That would be way easier and cheaper at this point.
JR,
If I may... you should start you own thread. I'm sure if someone is looking for this kind of info, it would be so hard to find buried in this long thread about Ronald's Towers.
That way, you will get relevant information about your own build, and it will be easier for others to find that information.
If I may... you should start you own thread. I'm sure if someone is looking for this kind of info, it would be so hard to find buried in this long thread about Ronald's Towers.
That way, you will get relevant information about your own build, and it will be easier for others to find that information.
You might make it way harder than needed, yes...
Just to entertain myself I did make a picture of what I proposed (lol)
Way too complicated of coarse, the blue (3mm) parts are neoprene or sorbothane, the front is the baffle, the alu is bolted to the driver frame and another sheet of 10 mm "something" is supporting the back. The 3.2 mm alu would support M5 as the biggest fastener.
What about a Corian baffle, double up with birch ply with neoprene in between.
Mount the driver to the Corian (flush of course) Or to the Ply (inset with filleted hole in the Corian). Simple, effective...
Attachments
Last edited:
So the drivers recessed into the 1/2" Corian followed by a layer of neoprene and then a 3/4" layer of Baltic birch and then another neoprene layer and mount this whole baffle structure to the cabinet. I like it! The advantages of the constrained layer baffle, nicely rigid at over an inch thick and much easier to work with than aluminum. This is what I'm going with. Thanks Ronald!
I'll take this back to my original "crazy" thread for my next round of questions...
I'll take this back to my original "crazy" thread for my next round of questions...
Interesting test...
I really envy the time You have to devote to your passion, Ronald.
I listened to the two Camillio tracks You posted. However, there are some caveats to my set-up:
#1 my listening distance is only about 2.1 metres away from my arrays.
#2 my listening seat is close to the back wall - less then 1 metre Although I do have a heavy fur rug hanging on that wall which helps a lot. At some point in my life I will be digging deeper on more solutions for this short coming.
#3 my listening room is pretty lively. My carpeted floor and high ceilings do help, thou.
Thankfully, given the location of my arrays, I have minimal side reflections. And each speaker is EQed to the same response.
Given those circumstances, here are my impressions:
I CAN hear a difference between the two tracks, both tonally and spaciously.
Track B has a slightly leaner, more realistic tone (on my system). Track B sounds more clear and the instrument positioning is more pinpoint. I feel like I am sitting closer to the performance with this track. The sound seems to project more in front of the speakers.
Track A is warmer and more blended. The performance seems more behind and in-between the speakers.
There is definitely a perceived difference in the mid-bass, Track A having more.
As far as preference, today I would pick track B, but tomorrow, I might prefer the warmth of Track A. This is one of those cases where it is not a finite win win with either. Track B does a lot of what I like, yet I am wanting more from it, although I really can not pin point what the "more" is. And the "more" aspect might be something I am wanting "more" out of my speakers overall, that track B happens to remind me more of. Track A has an "accepting" quality to it. Track A would be good after a 13 hour work day, when I just want to listen and not try to improve my system.
I think I know which track is which, but I will not say here.
Thanks for the test, Ronald.
I really envy the time You have to devote to your passion, Ronald.
I listened to the two Camillio tracks You posted. However, there are some caveats to my set-up:
#1 my listening distance is only about 2.1 metres away from my arrays.
#2 my listening seat is close to the back wall - less then 1 metre
Although I do have a heavy fur rug hanging on that wall which helps a lot. At some point in my life I will be digging deeper on more solutions for this short coming. #3 my listening room is pretty lively. My carpeted floor and high ceilings do help, thou.
Thankfully, given the location of my arrays, I have minimal side reflections. And each speaker is EQed to the same response.
Given those circumstances, here are my impressions:
I CAN hear a difference between the two tracks, both tonally and spaciously.
Track B has a slightly leaner, more realistic tone (on my system). Track B sounds more clear and the instrument positioning is more pinpoint. I feel like I am sitting closer to the performance with this track. The sound seems to project more in front of the speakers.
Track A is warmer and more blended. The performance seems more behind and in-between the speakers.
There is definitely a perceived difference in the mid-bass, Track A having more.
As far as preference, today I would pick track B, but tomorrow, I might prefer the warmth of Track A.
This is one of those cases where it is not a finite win win with either. Track B does a lot of what I like, yet I am wanting more from it, although I really can not pin point what the "more" is. And the "more" aspect might be something I am wanting "more" out of my speakers overall, that track B happens to remind me more of. Track A has an "accepting" quality to it. Track A would be good after a 13 hour work day, when I just want to listen and not try to improve my system. I think I know which track is which, but I will not say here.
Thanks for the test, Ronald.
Thanks for playing, Allen.
I may have more time to play, but everything comes at a cost.
I'll let this test run for a week, I'll listen to these tomorrow (I hope) but won't comment until Friday.
The more players we get, the more we might be able to learn from it.
I hope Martin finds the time to join us.
I may have more time to play, but everything comes at a cost
.I'll let this test run for a week, I'll listen to these tomorrow (I hope) but won't comment until Friday.
The more players we get, the more we might be able to learn from it.
I hope Martin finds the time to join us.
Yey, it's Friday
Can we:
- hear a difference between the two tracks
- If there is a perceived difference, how does it present itself?
- do we prefer one over the other?
Hope to hear from you guys...
Hi altogether,
now I had time to listen to both tracks.
In J-river the delay is 2 seconds in my setup.
I would (in my constellarion of course) prefer the B -track, because:
-"S"- sounds are better integrated (example: ...your SSmiling friend at 4:22)
-The voice is a bit more compact and a few cm more forward to me.
-soft cymbal (2:09 right side) the beginning is better defined in time and more stable to localize.
-bass is more dry with more body and attac.
-the figure the piano plays (e-flat-g-f-g) has internal dynamic- differences, so that the "f" is pronouncet a little bit. At the B-track this is more obvious.
-at 1:25 "..the wind began to blow..." the hit on the cymbal sounds more defined and natural.
-although the track has no special dept -dimension, I can realise more easy that the piano is slightly behind the voice and the bass is more behind the piano.
- in conclusion the B-track is more musical, less boaring and more natural.
- I can not hear that the A track sounds warmer.
I think that the recording is in correct polarity. Changing the polarity leads to a more undefined sound in both tracks.
In general which technical changes were made with track B?
The improvements are quite subtile, but they are there and I don` t hear any negative effect.
So is there a possibility for downloading a VST plugin for preparing music online in the B-track-manner?
I would be very interested in!
have a good time
Martin
The only difference between these two tracks is phase.
The FR output "should" be the same between the two. One of the tracks has been altered in phase alone. With a shuffler made in RePhase.
I had used this shuffler before, when I did not use a form of cross talk cancelation. In fact, I went to cross talk cancelation because of the tests with this shuffler.
I have been revisiting this phase shuffler to see if it brings any benefit to my current DSP settings.
Shall I reveal which track has been shuffled?
The first time I came to this conclusion: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/277519-fixing-stereo-phantom-center-55.html#post4731694
I wanted to see if anything had changed in my preference. For a short while I thought I did hear an improvement. Until I found out I had messed up the ambient part of my setup. For now I prefer the variation of cross talk I use.
The FR output "should" be the same between the two. One of the tracks has been altered in phase alone. With a shuffler made in RePhase.
I had used this shuffler before, when I did not use a form of cross talk cancelation. In fact, I went to cross talk cancelation because of the tests with this shuffler.
I have been revisiting this phase shuffler to see if it brings any benefit to my current DSP settings.
Shall I reveal which track has been shuffled?
The first time I came to this conclusion: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/277519-fixing-stereo-phantom-center-55.html#post4731694
I wanted to see if anything had changed in my preference. For a short while I thought I did hear an improvement. Until I found out I had messed up the ambient part of my setup. For now I prefer the variation of cross talk I use.
Attachments
Last edited: