Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.
Return to Planar Speaker Asylum
64.252.138.232
In Reply to: RE: assumptions posted by MaggieLover on August 09, 2010 at 08:55:47
I'd have to make/have made only two compromises in my room for home theater. One is that I have to run the speakers tweeters in, which puts them too close to the side walls. The other is that I can't put in diffusers at the speaker wall reflection point because my cobbled-together screen cost all of 20 bucks, if I had a fancy motorized tab tensioned thing I wouldn't have that problem.
Anyway, these are fairly minor compromises and if I weren't so lazy I could work around them, e.g., by having a serious listening position for the speakers or making the screen out of transparent screen material and putting diffusers behind them, or just removing it when I listen to music. Or making portable diffusers.
I haven't put in surround yet, but I hope to do it without affecting the quality of the main system. My main problem is that the rear channel processing I want is in the processors or home theater receivers, AFAIK there's nothing that will do it in your computer, even though all I want is a Hafler matrix plus delay and a bit of spectral shaping. I'd really like to have the analog come out of the back of the computer, or from a DAC rack that interfaces properly (asynchronous USB or Firewire or another interface that's immune to jitter).
Anyway, a long way of saying I think it can be done, but they really don't make it easy for you, what with the low-fi quality of the home theater gear and the stick-in-the-mud primitivism of the high end stuff (or the hideously overpriced closed systems that never do quite what you want).
Follow Ups:
Please understand my comments were very general and not aimed at any specific setup. Nor was it a comdemnation of HT in general. They were merely thoughts on HT constaints in real world situations. There are also many of us that have similar room/family constaints for two channel stereo.
I am currently lucky enough to have a good sized and decent sounding two channel room with minor setup limitations. I also have a separate mid-fi (NAD) HT set up in a large finishd room in my basement. Few are lucky enough to be able to seperate the two functions. I was an audiophile for almost 30 years before I had that flexibility.
As I pointed out the problems increase significantly in rooms that also have to accomodate a screen, additional speakers, a more complicated hardware setup, and optimal HT seating for two, three or more. I can't imagine that even in a well setup HT system there aren't at least a few necessary compromises which will affect stereo only sources when compared to a dedicated two chaneel system.
Maggies, because you can never be too thin!
Mark
![]()
I envy you your room! This partition wall is ruining my life. All three windows actually belong to one big listening room, but they added this wall in the late 19th century to make a little bedroom. I'm sorely tempted to remove it, but it would be an immense amount of work and even though it's not intended as a structural wall the carpenter insists that it's one of the few things holding the house together. I managed to shoehorn in a projector and a 100" screen into the remaining space on the right, but it's always going to be a few feet short of a good listening room.
Anyway, in a room this size, a sizeable screen probably does have a negative effect on audio quality because as I mentioned it pushes the speakers too close to the side.
I do believe, though, that in a slightly larger room, or with a more elaborate screen, a projection setup can be introduced without compromising audio quality. In part that's because the eye seems to be happy with a screen that subtends the same angle as speakers on the standard equilateral triangle. Besides which, if I want a wider perspective as forex when I'm watching a 2:1 or 2.35:1 aspect ratio widescreen move, all I have to do is sit closer to the screen; if the hole in the middle concerned me under those circumstances I'd use a center channel speaker for video and turn it off for audio, but in my experience it just doesn't matter to me when I'm watching that kind of movie.
Those who want a real home theater, with people sitting out on the sides, would presumably have to adopt a different strategy if they didn't want to compromise the sound, e.g., using a motorized acoustically transparent screen in front of the speakers. That would impair the movie audio a bit, but almost certainly less than the acoustically transparent screens in movie theaters. And it would eliminate any effect on audio only listening, since speaker placement and acoustical treatment would be exactly the same as in a standard listening room. You could even fit Tympanis. Nor I think would there be acoustical issues, since there's no reason a home theater can't be the same shape or have essentially the same acoustics as a dedicated listening room. Hell, what could be more natural than theater seats when you're listening to an orchestral recording?
Surround, IMO, done right, will enhance rather than degrade the two channel experience. But even if it's turned off it shouldn't have a negative effect. The main problem in a small room like mine is that I can't place speakers at the rear, because I have to sit with my back against the wall.
As far as I can tell, the main impediment to a dual-use system is that gap between high end two channel and mid-fi home theater audio equipment. The workarounds tend to be clumsy and expensive. But people do manage, e.g., they may use a surround processor only for the rear channels, so as not to compromise the front. If worst comes to worst, you can always build a relay box or use a patchbay if the setup is balanced.
Anway, most of us can't afford HP's setup, with 20.1's in front and 3.6's for surrounds, but the most spectacular film audio I've ever heard was from my old Tympanis -- all I had in those days as a monitor was a 25" XBR and it was pre-surround, but man, did it work beautifully with VHS Hi Fi. The Tympanis had a combination of Maggie clarity and near-dynamic slam and bass extension that was perfect for movies. Far better than what I have now, or what I've heard in home theaters, commercial theaters, or the mix rooms themselves.
Sounds like that wall is more structural than your thought. I really understand your situation. And, I'm certainly not implyng that my situation is superior. At a bit less than 14 feet wide, I can accomdate 1.6's easily, and in a pinch I could fit in 3.6's, but nothing bigger. The actual length is 20 feet but completely opens up to a 16 foot long kitchen for a total of 36 feet. And I only have to work in two speakers and no screen. But the room does have a few issues, the main one being the carpet covered concrete floor, which is the result of the room being behind the garage.
Surround, IMO, done right, will enhance rather than degrade the two channel experience. But even if it's turned off it shouldn't have a negative effect.
I have to strongly disagree that an artificially created simulation of an acoustic space compliments stereo recordings. Mind you I'm not talking about surround SACD's or DVD A's. I mean processors that simulate rear channel ambiance. First the renderings never sound natural to my ears, and secondly, each recording would need different amount of decay, reverb and rear channel volume to sound like the original recorded space and to avoid calling attention to it. There is no one size fits all setting. One would have to listen to every recording to be played, assess the best settings for that recording, log them and than be prepared to change the settings as each recording is played. Thats a lot of effort. All this assumes that the end result would be worth it, which to my ears, it is not.
Maggies, because you can never be too thin!
Mark
Yeah, if I had to tinker with each recording I wouldn't bother. Maybe just set up 6.1 surround with my old Monsoons, four of the little Eminent Technology push-pull planars with 60 watts each, they cover the right frequency range for surround and would blend well with the Maggies. Easy and cheap and I could use them for video and the few discrete surround recordings I have.
What kind of ambiance recovery did you use? I've heard good things about the simplest approach, a Hafler matrix with delay. You're recovering actual ambiance, so there's no need to set the processor for hall size. You still have to deal with the variability of recordings, some have less out-of-phase info than others, but I've read that if you do things right, you can get about 80% of the quality of discrete surround. The consensus also seems to be that dipole surrounds are better for recovered ambiance, monopole for discrete, and I've heard it said that you need a minimum of six surround speakers for the best results.
The problem is, I'm so old that all my experience with matrix surround predates delay, so my personal experience is useless here.
That wall doesn't even line up with the wall on the floor below, and it's only 3" thick, with boards in the middle rather than studs. Still, I imagine it adds some rigidity, and the wood arch which is partially visible in the picture probably adds support as well.
My room is also about 14' wide, but unfortunately it has a very low ceiling and is only 12' 8" long, which is why I'd love to get rid of that wall. Since I can't do that I'm thinking of re-orienting the axis so that the listeners are in front of the windows. Then putting the speakers on either side of the fireplace, out about 5' from the rear wall. That's the best I've ever heard them sound in there, but it would mean I'd need a roll-up or fold down screen:
......_FIREPLACE_
...................................A............W
...................................R............A
...................................C............L
...................................H............L
....SPKR.........SPKR
...................................W
...................................A
...................................L
...................................L
.........WINDOWS
At least the floor is wood, and old wood, too. I tend to think it's the ideal material, since it's what you find in a concert hall. Ditto for plaster. And brick fireplaces make pretty good diffusers . . .
Back in the day I tried using a Hafler unit to retieve the out of phase info often present on many recordings. I was using Original Large Advents back then and traded them towards a pair of Spendor BC1's Less bass, but the midrange...Oh my! I was using a pair of 2 way AR4ax speakers for the surrounds. They were a precursor to the Dynaco A25s and tne Small Advents, but not anywhere as good at those later speakers.
I had, and still have the Dynaco Hafler unit, a very simple design. It has a toggle to shut off the rear speakers and a passive attenuator to control the rear channel volume. On some recordings, the effect was striking, on others, artificial sounding. In the end, I had to fiddle around too much with the attenuation from recording to recording or with taking the rear channels in and out of the circuit. I had the unit wired so it was at my listening seat for ease of use, but I realized I had to play with it so much to get the sound right that I was really becoming more focused on getting the right ambiance effect then I was on just enjoying the music. So, Hafler had to go.
I then tried other devices that cancelled left and right signals to the opposite ear to create a wider deeper soundstage with two speakers. Bob Carver had the AutoCorrelator which was similar to the unit I had. I used it with a dynamic range expander frrm dbx and a Dynaco SE-10 10 band equalizer. At their best, these devices created interesting effects, as their worst there was distortion, pumping and an artificial presentation and they required too much adjusting. It was at this point that I decided that simpler was better, and I have never looked back. I now get all the ambiance retrieval I want from my well set up pair of MG1.6s.
Over the years I've heard a number of units that simulate rear channel ambiance for stereo recordings. Some were very expensive and sophisticated. Their output was occasionally impressive, but like the Hafler, the results were more often disappointing and required too much fiddling.
Maggies, because you can never be too thin!
Mark
Similar experiences. Heavy, or even light, processing never got me anywhere with music in the late 70s & early 80s. Despite the effort put into making the companders and equalizers of the time sound musical, I kept reverting to basics. Impressive sound, oh yes! For just a short while. Never for real listening. Even to this day, I avoid any stage I can afford to.
Ahhh, memories! On the day I sold my dbx hardware, in the early 80s, I remember I was playing a Sheffield LP. Eric Leinsdorff's Excerpts from Romeo & Juliet (Prokofiev). The phone rang and I was annoyed, but only briefly.
Most unexpectedly, the owner of a pair of Acoustat 2+2 for sale, agreed to let me have them for a while. Despite their limitations, further aggravated by my equipment balking at the low impedance, I enjoyed 2 weeks of revelation. I got my first taste of "planars" just then.
Surprisingly, my wife agreed that I could buy them. Space and the need for better hardware kept me from doing so. I kept thinking I would until the advent of CDs, and the loss of all my equipment and LPs in a move, drove me away from "real" audio for more than a decade. A heavy traveling schedule didn't help, but it was really the CDs that did me in.
A friend of mine had the Hafler unit. Me, I only had two speakers, so I carried my stuff into the living room and tried it with my parents'. No adapter, so no level control. I'm not even sure I knew what a concert hall was supposed to sound like then!
I had a Phase Linear autocorrelator too, LOL. I remember the sweet spot between no noise reduction and no cymbals well. Also that even when you got it right, it still took some of the sheen off the highs. And I had the dbx expander as well, and an equalizer, not the Dyna but a BSR. Which never did anything for the sound but did teach me what the different frequency ranges sounded like. I also remember listening to Carver's crosstalk canceler, but I don't think I owned the unit, I think it was a demo disk.
Then, like you, I discovered and moved on to less-is-more high end gear, which sounded so much more like the real thing. So audio nostalgia aside, I know what you're saying.
Still, all of this stuff was primitive by today's standards. I think you can do a lot more sonically with measurement mics and minimum phase digital EQ. I've experimented a bit with modern crosstalk cancelers, the ambiophonics stuff, with intriguing results although it seemed very tweaky and I have yet to be convinced that all of the problems have been solved, that determination will have to wait until I can experiment with a carefully calibrated setup. I've heard a fair amount of discrete surround over the years with good results, but I've never tried a modern ambiance recovery setup, a matrix without delay can cause all sorts of confusion.
The reason I'm interested in trying it is because I've read positive reports by people I trust, e.g., J. Gordon Holt. And because for me, there are always going to be serious problems with two channel stereo -- both spatially, inasmuch as listening to a stereo recording is more like looking through a picture window than being at a concert, and in terms of timbre, since without sufficient ambiance recordings of orchestral material sound too bright.
I've also been intrigued by the realism of the sound when I put my speakers on edge. That was if anything too much ambiance. But it was a vivid reminder that the greatest barrier to realistic reproduction at this point is spatiality. Because despite obvious audible flaws, it sounded like the instruments were actually physically present in the room. Which is something I've never heard from conventional two channel stereo, which, even at its best, is like viewing a hologram. I've become intrigued by the possibility of recruiting the room to bridge the divide between the HRTF and interaural worlds.
I once had an SAE 6100 (I think that was the model number), which was a delay and reverb unit for sythesizing ambiance. I had a pair of Advent Juniors for the rears and had the Large Advents up front. It worked well, but required fiddling. The whole system required lots of fiddling and my wife always asked me, "How do I just play a record?"That was replaced by Sonic Holography and a Carver C1, which was also when I picked up that M400t (and Bose 901s which I didn't keep). The early '80s was the age of the processor. I'd bet most of us had dbx stacks and the like.
I don't have any desire to go back to a system like that. SACD provides multichannel that runs all the way from wild and crazy to proper ambiance. The latter is mostly on classical recordings that converts my little listening space into massive halls. That alone is worth the fuss. I don't own a processor, just an analog preamp. The rear channels are for those SACDs and DVDs - stereo music is played as stereo music with the rears out of the picture. I typically listen to the non-classical SACDs in stereo mode as well. In fact, that's the default mode setting on my player.
"Jazz is not dead - it just smells funny" FZ
Edits: 08/10/10
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: