Infocomm???

Re: Infocomm???

Hi

Sorry for unclear wording on previous post - english is not my language - anyway - as I started. clarity was obvious - rest does no really matter - admittedly I have never heard of anything like that anywhere else.
 
Re: Infocomm???

Tom Danley said:
Hi David.It may be that in the demo you went to, Mike didn’t preface that part by saying “if you’re close to the center…” which he was saying as part of the demo. I was at every demo but don’t recall him forgetting that part but to be honest, the trade show was pretty much a blur and I do know that many people stood at the rear in the center to hear that phantom and some commented on how pronounced it was. If you are a Synaudcon forum guy, there has been a thread about comb filtering and stereo images which Dr Jones replied to and explained why combing harms / destroys the mono phantom / stereo image as it mimic’s the Head Related Transform Function we use to tell the direction and height of a source. With speakers that radiate no interference pattern, a mono voice signal when listened to near the center will seem like a person standing in the center and talking with no awareness of a right and left source while a speaker system that has a large interference pattern has an obvious right and left source with some center phantom or with more interference what sounds like a wall of sound and a voice that spans a large width instead of a point in the center.Well if you’re at a demo, do say hi and if you have any questions that is the place to ask as between Doug, Ivan and myself, we are able to address whatever you might care to ask technically speaking.
Click to expand...
This however does not come close to the coherence of a single CENTER dialog speaker even when the listener is dead center between the 2 sources. Natural sound does not come from 2 sources when it is supposed to be a single source directly in front of you. I find the single center dialog speaker to reduce listening fatigue.
 
Re: Infocomm???

Harry Brill Jr. said:
This however does not come close to the coherence of a single CENTER dialog speaker even when the listener is dead center between the 2 sources. Natural sound does not come from 2 sources when it is supposed to be a single source directly in front of you. I find the single center dialog speaker to reduce listening fatigue.
Click to expand...
And that is exactly why most of my designs for most spaces start with a center source.

Many people like the "idea" of stereo-but they can't tell you why. Unless you NEED stereo, a mono system is often so much better in terms of clarity-lower costs etc.
 
Re: Infocomm???

Ivan, could I get you to set up a stereo system with Danley speakers about 1/2 mile apart and a 1/4 mile away... :-) (how big is that sweet spot?)

Sound reinforcement is pretty sensible and mostly mono.. Many people attach mystical significance to stereo as a playback system. It's mostly a cheap psychoacoustic trick, where the two speakers fool listeners into believing there is actual spatial information in the playback. The human brain is complicit in supporting the trickery, since we are wired to make sense of random data, fitting the inputs to our version of reality.

Stereo is more than twice as good as mono for home entertainment, but we quickly get into diminishing returns. The L-C-R+surround is very effective for movie mixes that use a center dialog channel, and surround efx channel. Once we accept that stereo is fundamentally compromised (2D playback of a 3D phenomenon) and an imperfect system, we can approach this with some perspective.

While opinions vary.

JR
 
Re: Infocomm???

Hmmm… just a random thought (and topic swerve)… has anyone ever set up a stereo system that not only adjusts level with panning, but also timing? I do realise that both ears hear both speakers as the sound diffracts around our heads, but just wondered if the experiment had been done. (/swerve) Doesn't really warrant comment…
 
Re: Infocomm???

Steve Anderson said:
Hmmm… just a random thought (and topic swerve)… has anyone ever set up a stereo system that not only adjusts level with panning, but also timing?
Click to expand...
If you look way back in the LAB archives I know some people were playing around with this. I think Michael "Bink" Knowles was one people posting about it. We are talking probably at least 10 years back.

Philip
 
Re: Infocomm???

Steve Anderson said:
Hmmm… just a random thought (and topic swerve)… has anyone ever set up a stereo system that not only adjusts level with panning, but also timing? I do realise that both ears hear both speakers as the sound diffracts around our heads, but just wondered if the experiment had been done. (/swerve) Doesn't really warrant comment…
Click to expand...

Yes do a search of AES journal papers. While the research was published decades ago and well before the technology was practical (digital consoles) . As I recall they quantified the relationship between delay (arrival time) and relative level to localize sources in a stereo mix i.e. if no delay difference then relative level is dominant, if one source arrives first it takes more level difference to skew the spatial localization away from the first arrival.

So this is yet another trick to confuse human localization. Being able to localize the relative source of threats was useful for survival so evolution supported multiple ways to determine which direction the saber toothed tiger was approaching from.

JR
 
Re: Infocomm???

Tom Danley said:
Unlike making a larger and larger line array the sound quality does not suffer with increasing size as even the largest one (the Caleb which covers the far end of the Iowa Hawkeye stadium over 800 feet away) still acts like /sounds like / measures like one driver.
Tom
Click to expand...


What is the SPL?
 
Re: Infocomm???

Steve Anderson said:
Hmmm… just a random thought (and topic swerve)… has anyone ever set up a stereo system that not only adjusts level with panning, but also timing? I do realise that both ears hear both speakers as the sound diffracts around our heads, but just wondered if the experiment had been done. (/swerve) Doesn't really warrant comment…
Click to expand...

This is all well and good in the studio but worthless live except for the folks right down the middle of the room. And yes i did this 20-25 years ago in the studio. Multichannel mixing works much better though. The more channels, the better.
 
Re: Infocomm???

John Roberts said:
Ivan, could I get you to set up a stereo system with Danley speakers about 1/2 mile apart and a 1/4 mile away... :-) (how big is that sweet spot?)



JR
Click to expand...
Actually we have an install coming up for a "company everybody in the world knows", and the speakers are 500' apart, and the nearest listener is 500' away. The furthest listener is about 550' away.

There is a small video screen that is 400' wide as well.

When we did the demo-in the actual venue-one of the sound guys remarked that he could mix an album from the seats.

We used 1 speaker that was about 3.5' on each side and 2 subs in a cardioid configuration. Rear rejection was the PRIMARY focus for the sub setup.

I was not there-so I cannot comment how large the "sweet spot" was. But the customer was VERY happy.
 
Re: Infocomm???

Steve Anderson said:
Hmmm… just a random thought (and topic swerve)… has anyone ever set up a stereo system that not only adjusts level with panning, but also timing? I do realise that both ears hear both speakers as the sound diffracts around our heads, but just wondered if the experiment had been done. (/swerve) Doesn't really warrant comment…
Click to expand...

Do you mean something different than Haas panning?
 
Re: Infocomm???

Mike Brown said:
Do you mean something different than Haas panning?
Click to expand...

Haas was one of the early researchers identified with the arrival time precedence phenomenon (along with Madsen and others). I was not aware that they called it "Haas panning". I guess that sounds a little more exotic than "delay panning". I doubt Haas envisioned it ever being used that way, but someone did as evidenced by the AES paper(s). Up until recently decent quality delay was pretty exotic, now it's pretty much free inside a digital environment.

JR
 
Re: Infocomm???

Tim Weaver said:
I have used delay to swing the "sweet spot" around in a room where the stage or pa is setup wonky.

It helps, but doesn't give you perfect imaging.
Click to expand...
Hmm, next month I'm playing in a bar where the band is set up about 60 degrees across a corner. Always a pain to set up a PA in there and I usually turn down the speaker closer to the back wall just to limit feedback. So if I delay the side thats out in the room back to the same distance, does that steer the sound more down the middle of the room? Might help the bartenders who are in the opposite far wall.
 
Re: Infocomm???

Steve Kirby said:
Hmm, next month I'm playing in a bar where the band is set up about 60 degrees across a corner. Always a pain to set up a PA in there and I usually turn down the speaker closer to the back wall just to limit feedback. So if I delay the side thats out in the room back to the same distance, does that steer the sound more down the middle of the room? Might help the bartenders who are in the opposite far wall.
Click to expand...

It might improve the perceived sound balance for a limited amount of arrival time and SPL imbalance, worth a try.

JR
 
Top Bottom