On 2011-06-13, Dave Malham wrote:
In the past we had a "horizontal" array (they were actually hung from
the ceiling!) of four Quad Electrostatics. They could work well but at
other times the image was completely messed up by the reflections from
the walls of the rear radiation. This was all ve
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 11:17:51PM +0200, Franck M. wrote:
> But back to that Massive Attack bass line: if we use something like E=1
> (full regularization, which means no XTC) in the low frequencies, when you
> pan a mono bass sound to the center, both loudspeakers will emit the same
> signal =
Richard Dobson wrote:
On 13/06/2011 18:30, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
Robert Greene wrote:
The point I am trying to make is that there are ALWAYS higher frequency
components, except for the eternal "om" that started before time began
and that will continue into all eternity.(No offense I hop
13/06/11 02:55, « Fons Adriaensen » :
>
> There is no reason why an XTC system should remove center
> bass signals, and as far as I know none of them do this.
>
> I suspect you are confusing 'out-of-phase' and 'difference'.
[[Profanity warning: the following contains crude and probably inex
On 13/06/2011 18:30, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
Robert Greene wrote:
The point I am trying to make is that there are ALWAYS higher frequency
components, except for the eternal "om" that started before time began
and that will continue into all eternity.(No offense I hope to believers
in the rel
Stefan Schreiber wrote:
Robert Greene wrote:
The point I am trying to make is that there are ALWAYS higher frequency
components, except for the eternal "om" that started before time
began and that will continue into all eternity.(No offense I hope to
believers
in the religious content he
Robert Greene wrote:
The point I am trying to make is that there are ALWAYS higher frequency
components, except for the eternal "om" that started before time began
and that will continue into all eternity.(No offense I hope to believers
in the religious content here). Only that type of sign
On 13 Jun 2011, at 09:30, Dave Malham wrote:
On 12/06/2011 00:34, Robert Greene wrote:
Yes that is it!
Incidentally, I would like to add a (nonmathematical)
point. I think dipoles are more or less a disaster for Ambisonics
Bass is one thing, but what dipoles mostly do is bounce sound off
t
On 13/06/2011 03:44, Marc Lavallée wrote:
> I made an A/B/C switch to listen between direct stereo, BACCH and the
> new DW filters; both filters are cancelling well, but BACCH is less
> coloured.
Not EYCv2L-44.wav, I assume. It must be a high $,$$$ version you have!
I am curious how you manage t
On 12/06/2011 00:34, Robert Greene wrote:
Yes that is it!
Incidentally, I would like to add a (nonmathematical)
point. I think dipoles are more or less a disaster for Ambisonics
Bass is one thing, but what dipoles mostly do is bounce sound off
the back walls(unless you were using them as subw
I made an A/B/C switch to listen between direct stereo, BACCH and the
new DW filters; both filters are cancelling well, but BACCH is less
coloured.
Also, there's plenty of bass coming out of the BACCH filter,
more than with normal stereo.
I watched a scope trace of the filters for a panned sin
>Dipole and cardioid subs excite less room modes than omni subs:
>http://www.kirchner-elektronik.de/~kirchner/DIPOL-CARDIOIDeng.pdf
>http://www.linkwitzlab.com/Woofer%20accuracy.rtf
Uhm...doesn't that depend also on the sub position in the room?
For example, I think that a sub positioned in the mi
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:13:19AM +0200, Franck M. wrote:
> I'm not sure if I understood the whole mathematical formalism in there, but
> Choueiri states that BACCH filters end up maximizing out-of-phase response
> in low range (the so-called "first band"), and as a consequence in-phase
> respon
12/06/11 01:59, "Marc Lavallée" wrote:
> With stereo XTC, I prefer direct stereo bass (without a rear sub) than
> crosstalk cancelled bass, even it probably works well in some
> research lab...
For some real-life signals (understand, of "mono-centered-bass" shame),
BACCH filters as described
Marc Lavall?e wrote:
> Le Sat, 11 Jun 2011 14:41:13 -0600,
> Martin Leese a ?crit :
>> The difference is not between Ambisonics and
>> 5.1 (or whatever), but between the capabilities
>> of the main speakers and the subs. The
>> purpose of bass management is to direct bass
>> to speakers that c
On 2011-06-11, Martin Leese wrote:
Lately discussions on-list have been rather specific. I've mostly been
lurking around, so it's difficult to follow what's going on with the
research, and even the list consensus. Thus...
Could anybody summarize what has happened within the past 6-12 months i
Le Sat, 11 Jun 2011 14:41:13 -0600,
Martin Leese a écrit :
> > I understand that with ambisonics bass management is not required,
> > although a dedicated decoder for 3 or more subs could be considered
> > like bass management (when full range speakers are not available).
>
> The difference is n
Yes that is it!
Incidentally, I would like to add a (nonmathematical)
point. I think dipoles are more or less a disaster for Ambisonics
Bass is one thing, but what dipoles mostly do is bounce sound off
the back walls(unless you were using them as subwoofers only)
in a way that creates "spacious
Marc Lavall?e wrote:
...
> In an article I mentioned earlier ("Spatial auditory display using
> multiple sub-woofers in two different reverberant reproduction
> environments"), tests were made in an anechoic chamber where the
> detection was much better than in a small room. The test tones were on
On 10 Jun 2011, at 10:43, Paul Hodges wrote:
> --On 10 June 2011 10:26 +0200 Bo-Erik Sandholm
> wrote:
>
>> Case B : Use a steady state 50 Hz signal and slowly pan it to new
>> locations.
>
> Of course, as this involves the level from each speaker changing, the speaker
> feeds will still have
Le Thu, 9 Jun 2011 11:34:13 -0700 (PDT),
Eric Benjamin a écrit :
> from wikipedia:
>
> > As the frequency drops below 80 Hz
> > it becomes difficult or impossible to use either time difference or
> > level difference to determine a sound's lateral source, because the
> > phase difference betwee
I agree with Fons two statements. i probably made my argument too absolute.
I did suggest a preference for full range speakers in all locations when
possible and practical. But I also wanted to suggest the utility and quality
possible in a well designed bass management system. Interesting thread.
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 03:09:44PM +0200, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
> On 06/09/2011 07:46 PM, Marc Lavallée wrote:
>
>> Did it work because of the room modes and/or standing waves at 50Hz?
>
> since fons is very probably using a max rV decoder with a strong
> antiphase component in the opposite s
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 01:57:33PM +0100, dw wrote:
> The idea of listening for pleasure to bass sounds without overtones or
> transients conjures up an image of a twitcher tracking down a rare,
> three legged sparrow. The public just don't understand..
It should be clear from the context tha
On 06/09/2011 07:46 PM, Marc Lavallée wrote:
Did it work because of the room modes and/or standing waves at 50Hz?
since fons is very probably using a max rV decoder with a strong
antiphase component in the opposite speaker, the room modes won't be
excited as much as when using a single-speak
On 10/06/2011 13:33, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 09:43:55AM +0100, Paul Hodges wrote:
--On 10 June 2011 10:26 +0200 Bo-Erik Sandholm
wrote:
Case B : Use a steady state 50 Hz signal and slowly pan it to new
locations.
Of course, as this involves the level from each speaker
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 09:43:55AM +0100, Paul Hodges wrote:
> --On 10 June 2011 10:26 +0200 Bo-Erik Sandholm
> wrote:
>
>> Case B : Use a steady state 50 Hz signal and slowly pan it to new
>> locations.
>
> Of course, as this involves the level from each speaker changing, the
> speaker feeds
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 10:26:20AM +0200, Bo-Erik Sandholm wrote:
>
> Fons can you do 2 experiments?
>
> Get someone else than the listener to do random panning to a number of
> discrete locations.
That was already the case. Panning was controlled by the software, and the
actual
Az values pri
--On 10 June 2011 10:26 +0200 Bo-Erik Sandholm
wrote:
Case B : Use a steady state 50 Hz signal and slowly pan it to new
locations.
Of course, as this involves the level from each speaker changing, the
speaker feeds will still have the higher frequency components. Indeed, I
presume they wo
Sound discussion group
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Fwd: Bass Problem in crosstalk cancellation
Two more (Euro)cents:
Just performed a little experiment.
Sine wave of 50 Hz, linear rise to full amplitude in 150 ms, hold 250 ms,
linear fade out of 150 ms. The spectrum of such a signal is more than 60 dB
On 10/06/2011 01:29, Robert Greene wrote:
Could I be permitted a mathematical comment?
There is no such thing as a linear
system (say a subwoofer) with an absolute upper frequency limit in
the actual world, only in mathematical theory.(A step function
of finite width is L2 and so it is the Fo
Could I be permitted a mathematical comment?
There is no such thing as a linear
system (say a subwoofer) with an absolute upper frequency limit in
the actual world, only in mathematical theory.(A step function
of finite width is L2 and so it is the Fourier transform of something
else that is L2.
My home listening room is 20ft x 20ft sqr (6.6m x 6.6m).
Originally I was fooled into thinking directionality was not significant
at low/sub-bass frequencies ... until I tried it.
I now use four subs one at the approximate mid-point of each wall
(somewhat adjusted to accommodate the domestic
inal Message-
> From: sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu [mailto:sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu]
> On Behalf Of Martin Leese
> Sent: den 8 juni 2011 18:35
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Fwd: Bass Problem in crosstalk cancellation
>
> Marc Lavall?e wrote:
>
Le 7 juin 2011 17:39:39, jim moses a écrit :
> I think our localization of energy below 80Hz is ambiguous at best and is
> complicated even more by the reality of room modes (that provide their own
> spatial effect). But the bass range from about 100Hz to 600Hz is important
> to provide a good sens
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 11:03:56AM -0400, jim moses wrote:
> But the unanswered question is, can we really detect the originating
> > direction of low frequency sound if you do not
> > have assistance of the over 80-120Hz overtones ?
> >
>
> conventional thought says no. This matches my experienc
ound-boun...@music.vt.edu]
> On Behalf Of Martin Leese
> Sent: den 8 juni 2011 18:35
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Fwd: Bass Problem in crosstalk cancellation
>
> Marc Lavall?e wrote:
> ...
> > Ambisonics can supposedly reproduce
> > bass from all direc
Bo-Erik Sandholm
Sent: den 9 juni 2011 09:37
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Fwd: Bass Problem in crosstalk cancellation
Yes
But the unanswered question is, can we really detect the originating direction
of low frequency sound if you do not have assistance of the over
age-
From: sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu [mailto:sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On
Behalf Of Martin Leese
Sent: den 8 juni 2011 18:35
To: sursound@music.vt.edu
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Fwd: Bass Problem in crosstalk cancellation
Marc Lavall?e wrote:
...
> Ambisonics can supposedly reproduce
Marc Lavall?e wrote:
...
> Ambisonics can supposedly reproduce
> bass from all directions; is it true?
Yes, assuming:
1. The source contains bass from all
directions
2. The standing waves in the room don't
screw up localisation of bass frequencies.
But this is also true for 5.1 (assum
No, not at all, Marc. I didn't pickup the specifics on the 'eggs' - sorry
about that. But i wasn't implying a hard cutoff at 80Hz. 120hz is ok. It's
the higher end for the crossover but is acceptable and the same ideas
apply.
>
>
>
>
> 2011/6/7 Marc Lavallée
>
>>
>> Jim, what you are telling me
Jim, what you are telling me (indirectly) is that the smallest KEF
"Eggs" I got are inadequate. Their crossover frequency is 120Hz. The
others models can go down to 80Hz and 70Hz (they are also more
expensive and not on sale). So my initial project of building lots
of small bass reflex enclosures
I think frequency response is pretty important - most important? maybe. Most
of the articles in the bibliography are addressing frequency response. It
can get severely distorted at low frequencies in real rooms.
And there is bass and there is bass. As for 'boring mono bass' of pop music
- that is
The Harman article basically says that bass in pop music is usually mono
and therefore we should care mostly about the frequency response. Using
multiple subs does helps to smooth the frequency response, but is it
what's most important? There are recordings with stereo bass, so I'd
prefer to hear
The idea that one can manipulate standing waves with multiple subs is pretty
well studied. It's separate from the idea of localizing low frequencies but
does imply the usefulness of have multiple subs to improve frequency
response and avoid bass peaks and nulls at locations throughout a space.
Harm
45 matches
Mail list logo
