![]() ![]() |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.130.117.241
Nah you don't need a pool table but the idea came to me playing a game ...
If you shoot two balls at the same speed ,180 degrees apart, they meet and virtually no energy is used to direct the balls elsewhere. The energy of the opposing balls sort of cancel each other. If they meet at a slight angle, then they shoot off into the the direction of the apex of the angle that they meet.
It dawned on me the same applies to sound waves coming from your speaker. The middle point between the left and right channel, has the respective channels meeting and basically cancelling each other.
However, the cancellation is not perfect. No speaker system is perfectly balanced at all frequencies and at all amplitudes. It could be driver matching, amplifier variation, and the like, just too many possible factors.
This center line, so to speak, becomes a battlefield, and imaging actually suffers as certain frequencies may dominate (slightly) on one channel and perhaps on the other channel elsewhere. IT may move from one lateral direction at one frequency then to another at another, making for a slight blur in sound.
Taking inspiration from the pool table, place a barrier between the two cabinets. Ideally, the barrier should be as tall (or preferably slightly taller) the cabinets (above the tweeters is quite the key). I like to use those Japanese style room dividers: cheap and effective and 6 feet tall. Their reflective surface is NOT an issue, BTW.
I have Room Tunes but I use them with the reflective side out double stacking two pairs. Make a slight V configuration, aiming the left side panel towards the left , and right side panel aimed towards the right. I can not be specific because a lot of this is dependent on room acoustics and the speakers themselves plus your seating arrangement.
The two panels should form a V configuration with the point of the V dead center and blocking the line of sight between the two cabinets. It should be pointing to the listener. I have my panels about 6 inches apart at the center, with the panels forming a roughly 60 degree spread. You will have to experiment with this angle for best results in your environment.
Using the room dividers means that the point of the V is actually touching, but that seems not to be an issue. Remember, you want the direct sound waves from each channel BLOCKED by these panels. You can quick sight down on the top of the cabinet to make sure this is so. From the position of the drivers, you should not see the other channel's drivers
What this does is to produce a fantastic soundstage: three dimensional, and very dynamic with a great increase in fine detail.
The distortion of the left/right channel meeting in the middle is eliminated and it remains for the ear to combine the separate channel information and apparently it does so quite happily and effectively
Oh yeah first reflective points and all the other stuff is still important , but this will give solid imaging as long as your drivers are time and phase aligned. I find it far more effective than first reflective point treatment. Pushing the sound towards the listener mean you are not wasting the energy your cabinets are putting out
Don't want to spring for Room tunes or the dividers?, get a large piece of cardboard ( say from a frig, or other large white goods) and set it up this way. I have actually, at a customer's home, used a stack of empty boxes, corner pointing towards the listening position to get 90 percent of the effect, even though the boxes were rectangular and not symmetrically square
Down point? Your remotes may not work being blocked by the panels.
HAve fun...
Follow Ups:
unclestu.....I'll be darned if this tweak isn't just all that you claimed it could be...For me it is just extraordinary how it cleaned up the stage and "YES" further clarified inner detail...It seems to deal with a (perceived) right channel weakness that has dogged me for years..
I'm loving it!! At this point I've just stacked two saxophone cases to form a 12" deep column a few inches taller than the highest point of my speakers...I'm thinking of ways to formalize the design..I see many nice examples from other folks that have implemented your tweak...
Thank you for your generosity in sharing these most inventive and easily accessible improvements..
Very much appreciated.
"What a great ride"!!
Glad you're enjoying it !!!!
Uncle Stu,
Did you test adhesive, layered felt deflection rings with increasing apertures for tweeter and mid-range cone speakers yet as they economically achieve exactly that highly-focused sound effect without the need for introducing extraneous materials between the speakers?
DG
Yeah....but this works independently of the felt around the tweeter or midrange.I've tried it on diverse speakers like the latest Ryans, Wilsons, Quad 57's, and it works extremely well. Actually I can not recall a speaker where it did not work well. Both Ryans and Wilson ( Watt, Puppies have felt around the drivers).Being a dealer exposes me to many many different brands of speakers, so experimentation is readily available
No matter how much felt you place around the drivers on a baffle, the sound coming off of the driver tends to be hemispherical, with perhaps a bit more emphasis on the front. In fact when looking at dispersion characteristics of almost any driver the propagation 180 degrees off the forward direction is always lower than the forward direction. However signal still "bleeds", for the lack of a better word, directly against the signal from the other speaker.
You can try and cure it at the source, but the issue will still remain in the center between the speakers.
Many have criticized tweakers for not addressing room acoustics. This however, is a very"out of the box" means or addressing fundamental , or at least what I consider fundamental issues with speaker placement. And believe me I have the levels and laser pointers to show for all the efforts I have made. They all help, but not to the degree this tweak does.
One caveat, if the speaker system is not time and phase aligned, these anomalies will be more evident. Also be aware that many pieces of software are also reversed in polarity, so if imaging gets worse try reversing polarity. For some odd reason the majority of my CD's are reversed.
Edits: 04/22/15
Hi Stu,
I have a lot of plywood boards, I'm gonna try it!
Thanks a lot for your help!
be interested in hearing of your results
Incidentally Monster made something a bit similar in the 80s. They made an acoustical panel abut 18 inches deep and 6 feet high. It was designed to be placed centered behind the main speakers against the back wall
![]()
Here's a photo of the center between my speakers; Note the extreme clutter in front: definitely not audiophile approvedks of wood are M'pingo, I use the Shun Moook Sonic Stabilizers in a manner they do not really approve of ( double stack vertical instead of horizontal)
Tilt is camera view point ot in reality
"Also Sprach Zarathustra"?
Interesting room treatment, the single panel version of which has been well documented elsewhere in the past. Not sure if it actually increases fidelity or creates artificial effect that fools the brain via amplification or additional scattering of L + R out-of-phase signals, increasing the sense of channel separation and depth, perhaps doing acoustically what the old Dynaquad tried to do electronically.
What does it do to mono signals? Does it work equally well on any quality recording?
Peace,
Tom E
"It dawned on me the same applies to sound waves coming from your speaker. The middle point between the left and right channel, has the respective channels meeting and basically cancelling each other."
I think the improvements you are hearing cannot be the result of your explanation. Something else is going on. Sorry I haven't thought about what may be the basis for the improvements from your tweak, but sound waves canceling or reinforcing in air do not act like elastic spheres colliding. Sound waves pass through each other and have constructive or destructive interference. They add together or cancel (partially or completely). Example - subwoofer room nodes and antinodes.
Two sounds cancel out each other only if they are identical waveforms and are 180 degrees out of phase. Try a pair of noise canceling headphones, amazingly affective. They mic the sound, invert 180 degrees, mix the inverted sound with the ambient sound and......... quiet. Of course that is a lot easier trick to pull off with headphones than in a room.
Because you are sitting at the listening position and hear the waves arriving there, not the waves interacting directly between the two speakers, you would not hear the affect described in your explanation. I am only saying the explanation is flawed, not the tweak itself. If you put your head directly between the speakers, the barriers would reduce the interference but play hell with the sound (either the left, right or both speaker would be blocked by the sound barriers/reflectors). At the seating position you would still be subject to destructive and constructive interference. With the barriers in place the sound arriving directly from the speakers to your ears would still have interference. The only sound blocked by the barriers would have reflected off the opposing sidewall if the barrier were not there.
This is particularly interesting because it diverges so completely from decades of "common knowledge". Everyone has always said "Don't put racks, TVs, etc. between your speakers.".
Your success obviously has an explanation. I wish I had one instead of this poorly written theory buster I did post. Sorry and thank you.
1. Signals cancel if 180 degrees apart. Isn't a mono signal essentially that? Shouldn't, say a strong vocal, carry equal amplitudes on both channels? That's what gives the center image, right?2.Sound waves not reinforcing? How do ports work on a cabinet?
3. This tweak enables your BRAIN to combine the left Right signals. Now doesn't that occur with headphones? If so, why can't it work for speakers?
3. Decades of common knowledge? Yes, but my placement of the center panel corners facing forward is definitely NOT like a rack or cabinet. I am reflecting the separate left/ right signals back out into the room into the listeners ears, for the most part. Think reflectors in a concert hall.
Simply put, the tweak greatly increases the center focus. However, it does not only help center imaging but also lateral placement in a very 3D manner. Listening to the complete Phantom in the opening auction scene reveals detail of the echoes off the stage and the auctioneer's gavel is extremely realistic.You can hear layers of music over dubbed upon each other in quite a natural way for many recordings.
Of course the angle of the two panels must be experimented with, but once you reach the sort of ideal position the sound is fantastic.
You need not try it, BTW. I have employed this tweek for well over two decades noe. All I can say is that it works
Edits: 04/21/15 04/21/15 04/21/15
You are mistaking PHASE for IDENTITY.
A mono signal from 2 speakers is essentially identical, to the limits of the drivers and electronics ability to reproduce it. All difference signals are phased out. or Should Be.
I suspect that stereo is has a high percentage of near-identical data between channels. Somebody can tell me how much in common a signal with 20db of seperation has.
The way CARVER handled this information was as follows. He realized that the left and right channels contained information from the OTHER channel and that such data reached BOTH ears, with a time delay based on what is basically the distance between ears. Their is also a frequency component to this also, since one side of the head is in the sound SHADOW and will attenuate HF as well as being slightly delayed relative to the other side.
So what did Carver do?
He basically subtracted L/R common from the RIGHT and R/L common from the LEFT. This leaves you with a pure L or R signal and superior channel separation,
Polk did the SAME thing by placing 2 midrange speakers (maybe tweeters, too?) the inter aural time delay distance apart on each enclosure. Than they simply ran speaker wires between the enclosures to do the same thing as Carver accomplished at line level, only at speaker level.
So there IS room for improving the stereo illusion. The Carver circuit, which he called 'Sonic Hologram' came to be known as Sonic Holocaust. Polk made the speakers long enough to STOP making them and the whole idea was never heard from again.
Keeping the right channel out of the LEFT ear and left channel out of the RIGHT ear has a certain rightness to it.
You might be on to something, but maybe a little history will help figuring your way thru it.
I'd experiment with a BINAURAL recording on your setup. 'See' what effect that has and if the sound / image improves or what.
Too much is never enough
Algebraic summation is the basis for both DTS and Dolby surround sound digital. The info is based on the data in the four primary channels and the channels between are derived from algebraic summation ( or subtraction as the case may be).
It was also the basis of early Dolby prologic of course without the rear channels.
Distance between the ears was realized to be a determination of localized information frequencies based on the wavelength between the ears. That was determined very early on in the field of audio and sonics.
So as you can clearly see the idea clearly predates Carver and Polk. Carver may have employed better publicity, but I would not say he invented the concept. I've experimented with both products, incidentally, and both sucked. Big time IMHE. Interesting theory but extremely poor execution
A signal rotated 180 degrees IS out of phase.
![]()
Uncle Stu,Having cork rather than other materials to hand, I tried a variant that supports your experience. Took a 5' length of cork with an 11" width and hung it down the side facing the sound-stage of each speaker anchored by a pile of tiles on top so that it screens the inside front edge of the tweeter/ mid-range/ with a 2" overhang along the front edge before being anchored at the bottom by the speaker base. The sound-stage, already wide, did not further expand this way but the image focus tightened up appreciably. Your idea of delaying the point at which the sound-waves of each channel conflict in order to minimize the resulting degradation of sound quality is outstanding.
DG
Edits: 04/24/15 04/24/15 04/25/15
The soundstage width is not affected by the goings on in the center, but it does cut the distortion I mentioned in the middle. The effect is exactly what you hear: a much tighter center focus and much better detail.
Our French audiophile ( Sorry i keep forgetting how to spell his name)
just screwed a couple of woof panels together and reports some success. I like to be able to adjust the angle so you add brackets or even make a small wooden base into the panels from the bottom.
Uncle Stu,
Please advise whether each panel width that works effectively is 12" or 18"?
With many thanks,
DG
The key is simply blocking the line of sight between channels. If your speakers have very little toe in, the skinnier panel width is OK.In most cases, 12 inches is usually enough. Thickness is immaterial, of course, although a little absorbent material on the back is better as it will absorb some of the reflected sound off the back wall. You can simply buy 6 foot by 12 inch shelving and use that.
While your application works, some sound waves will bleed around the barrier and still meet and clash in the center, so the panels are preferred and will even give greater sonic gains.
Lighter panels are easier to move around too, if you have a TV set in the center. You can make a a sort of T shaped base so it becomes very easy to play with the angles, which makes a major sound difference.
Remember the panels must be taller than your tweeter height in order to have a greater sound stage height. Six inches would be great, although I have used 7 foot high panels with great success
Edits: 04/25/15
![]()
Stu,
Many thanks for this remarkable tweak and your help.
Found that the best configuration for the channel separators with my Vienna Acoustic Maestro Grands and room layout is at an angle of about 105 degrees 18 inches to the inside front of each speaker as depicted in the attached photograph.
I share your experience of the vertically expanded sound-stage (that happily also makes the widescreen sound behind more authentic) and the enhanced image definition that makes all sounds dense and even the smallest sounds stand out. What's even more important and takes me by surprise is the striking and highly desirable increase in the purity of sound; had always heard improvements of that nature in the past after removing a layer of digital corruption...
As you can see, made my own 12" x 48" channel separators with plywood base, each covered with cork and front-faced with a panel of acrylic P-99 non-glare plastic to reflect the sound waves to the listener. Lot of work but permanent fixtures deserve it.
DG
Hey Ginge, I tried this tweak too, but with 2 covered roxul panels in a V. Immediately heard better imaging, but by the sounds of it, not as dramatic as a reflective surface.
Want another revelation? deaden that back wall.
I know you've heard that before & been resistant to try, but it does look like a dedicated room.
I bought a pack of 5 roxul panels for 40 bucks and some "speaker" cloth for $20. Covered them using a glue gun, they look pretty good. Huge improvements in clarity. Never will go back to a "live" room again.
Is there a window on the left? and do you have any room treatments behind the listener?
PS I'm on board with the toe in. The only times I've liked no toe in has been in large rooms, where the speakers are far from the side walls. Still think toe-in almost always snaps in the imaging.
jhrld,Many thanks for sharing your experience with Roxul boards. Since mine is a sitting room (not dedicated listening room), will first have to overcome resistance to the impact in terms of aesthetics. Suspect that the utility of boards on the back wall behind speakers diminishes substantially after introducing 'channel-separator' panels that block most of the rear inward-leaking sound-waves. Stu's tweak takes work that is amply rewarded by an unexpected and marked improvement in sound purity and image definition.
Yes, there are a pair of 4' x 6' sliding French windows to the listener's left on which there are a set of 4 x 40mm Marigo Audio Black Super Dots @$79.00 per set for a total of $165.00 ($158 + $7 USPS PM); a brilliant acoustical invention of Ron Hedrich to dampen glass at the first reflection point so leaving unrestricted access to both the light and view unlike conventional fabric/ board solutions.
Have you considered soldering a new lead from each driver terminal to an externally mounted cross-over in a maple/ bamboo enclosure to reportedly create a significant improvement in clarity (a tweak slowly ascending my list...)?
DG
Edits: 05/24/15 05/24/15
moving the crossover outboard frees your inductors from the magnetic fields of the speakers and vice versa.
The wooden cabinets further reduce magnetic interaction. While it is not "audiophile" in appearance, the lightest, most porous wood, seems to give the best performance. I was rather surprised when I used balsa ( i had some pieces left over from model work). It had the most open top end compared to the more commonly used woods ( maple, etc.)
On the other hand, taking the experience with instrument makers ( luthiers).walnut/ oak have good bass, rosewood has a great midrange, maple: good top end. I still prefer spruce for an all 'round response. I would assume that the more plain jane woods can be dressed up with a thin inlay or purfling ( you can buy premade purfling from luthier suppliers). Just run a table saw shallow cut close to the edge the width of the purfling.
Of course YMMV and FWIW.
Stu,
Thank you. Forgot about spruce which is the most appealing and finishing off cross-over enclosures with decorative edges to achieve a professional look never even occurred to me...
Incidentally, when making channel-separators again, would make them 15" wide and 60" tall to more effectively block wave-leakage.
DG
DG and stu,
do you think it might be worth a try to cover the back sides of the roxul
panels I'm using for wave leakage with thin wood?
Some frequencies might penetrate the roxul, but are these the frequencies we need to keep separate?
Also, I'm thinking they might be more effective where DG has them, rather than a V in front of the rack. Guess I need to make bases.
jhrlrd,
Channel-separators need a reflective surface facing the sides of the speakers to swiftly redirect the sideways-leaking sound-waves towards the listening position and a base to hold them vertically as you say. In my case each panel is held vertically to the top of a 17.5" plywood circle by four 4" angle brackets. The back side of each panel is intended to absorb/ block sound-waves reflecting back off the back wall behind the speakers; personally used cork but Roxul presumably is effective and plan to test acoustic felt. Be interesting to read Stu's comment re. Roxul...
Test the V-layout against my open format and you may not hear much between them so your final selection may come down to other considerations. Good luck with Stu's excellent tweak!
DG
That's a lot more distance than I would use but then I never have done the set up with as much toe in as you use. Main thing is that it works, plus makes using the remotes a bit easier.....8^)
Stu,
An unobstructed sound-stage is important to those such as myself who want to visualize the orchestra or artists performing in their imagination - something that's quite impossible with the dominance of the central V-channel separators. That's why I started by draping cork over the side of the speakers themselves and graduated after testing to the inner-side location. The three impressive sound benefits are heard equally well using either location so it's a matter of personal preference.
The tow-in reflects a triangular configuration of speakers and listening position each of which are separated by eight feet.
DG
Hmmm...Not sure if I am understanding you correctly. Are you saying with the dividers you are not getting a wider three dimensional soundstage?
That has not been my experience at all. I get a very wide accurate soundstage with great depth. The caveat is that it all depends on the recordings themselves. That can be a major issue. I have long pursued recordings for which the recordings sets ups are known. Mercury, some RCA's, Some Decca's. Audio Quest recordings are also documented and actual pictures of the recording sessions are often published in their liner notes.
For such documented recordings I can hear the microphone positioning, which in my mind, reflects a neutrality in presentation. This of course does not apply to every recording on every label. The more multi miked the recordings, the greater the sonic " confusion" in terms of imaging, particularly with pop recordings.
In the pop world the Phil Spector "Wall of Sound" is a good example. Spector keeps the vocals usually in correct polarity in order to get that sharp central imaging, but then inverts polarity on the background instruments, causing them to sound a bit blurry but very expansive and with a wide soundstage.
Same thing happens with many artists doing duets. The Michael Crawford album has him singing with some great operatic singers (Barbara Bonney).
Bonney has perfect pitch and she doesn't sound quite as good as Crawford because Crawford in in one polarity and she is in another.
Polarity has been the bane of my listening and it literally took me a decade to be able to recognize upon hearing. The vast majority of the CD seem to be inverted for some odd reason. My DDG's and Philips also....Very frustrating until I put polarity switches on my Phono and picked up a DAC with the switch.
YMMV and FWIW
Stu,
This is what I, perhaps mistakenly, understand as the explanation for the dominant benefits:
1. The improvement in solid, detail imaging is caused by the reflection of the sideways-leaking sound waves forward so that they hit the listener's ear instantaneously with direct sound waves with the concentrated force of matched timing.
2. The expansion in sound stage height is attributable to the re-direction of some of the sound waves that leak inwards/sideways off each speaker being heard after reflecting off the top rather than mid-areas of the channel separator.
3. The marked increase in sound purity follows the removal of corrupt turbulence when the sound waves from each speaker are prevented from leaking sideways and meeting centrally before reaching the listener's ears.
You are correct that the whole sound stage is expanded in width but to me it's the least striking of the improvements and not one for which I can offer an explanation. Perhaps you can? As you say, the whole polarity issue is infuriating with CDPs; with servers the software setting is made once per album and then it's no longer an issue.
Hope that more inmates will grab the plywood/ L-joints and build their own panels to enjoy the many benefits of your tweak.
Thank you again.
DG
Even prior to my panels, I had great soundstage width. The panels basically sharpened the imaging within the soundstage and added a great amount of depth. This additional sharpness makes the extreme width information much more audible, in the sense that it is very nicely presented, with greater resolution of fine detail.
Incidentally, I prefer the panels even taller ( I can't in my room as I have low ceilings). You can experiment with placing a short stool under the panels or even placing an open CD case on the top. (I know, I know..... all that work.....). This way certain pieces, particularly choir pieces (thinking Cantate Domino) achieve a truly ethereal quality.
In a way, I guess we are simulating a headphone. Still, I believe the brain beats the sound waves attempting to combine and produce the center image. The brain does a better job at recombining the left-right data. Our mechanical transducers can not simply be made so precise.
Still the interesting thing is the fact that we can actually channel the sound to our advantage, and increase our enjoyment. The thing that freaks me out is that all this information was always in the musical data in the first place...
![]()
Not being able to leave well enough alone, I had a very old, tall, three-section room divider that I decided to put to work.
Being aware that the openings allow "leakage," I like it better than the previous room tune-type arrangement.
Stu,Yes, your tweak demonstrates how the brain constructs an internal sound-stage from the sound-waves heard from the speakers and channel-separators. In placing my head in the conventional external sound-stage between/ behind the speakers, the only music left there is above four feet after leaking over the panels from the speakers. There's zero reproduced-sound beneath.
Racks/ other obstructions of convenience against the central back-wall have previously paid a sonic price for disrupting the flow of leaking sound-waves. Now audiophiles can have their central racks, listen to their music free of that disruption and enjoy the other improvements.
DG
Edits: 05/20/15 05/20/15
Hi Dryginger,
WHat you say make me think to a...horn wich keep the sound in it's throat as long as possible...
Aupiho,
Please note that this is an exercise in traffic 're-direction' to prevent the cause of ongoing sound-wave crashes...
DG
![]()
20+ years ago I made some pseudo "room tunes," consisting of a frame, cloth and a piece of foil-faced (one side) fiberglass insulation within. I also made bases, but never attached them.
Put them in service as shown in the picture. Marked improvements on most fronts. Since I like the sound as they are, I am in no rush to experiment further.
Many thanks for this idea.
Place the foil side forward for best result.BTW, Looks great !!!
Edits: 04/26/15
***1. Signals cancel if 180 degrees apart. Isn't a mono signal essentially that? Shouldn't, say a strong vocal, carry equal amplitudes on both channels? That's what gives the center image, right?***
A mono recording played back on a stereo system is identical in both channels, therefore in-phase. Sentences 1, 3, 4 are correct. Sentence 2 is only true if one channel is out of phase.
***2.Sound waves not reinforcing? How do ports work on a cabinet?***
They do interact, but I was referring to what does or does not happen at the listening position due to blocking the interaction directly between the speakers. Also, speaker cabinet ports are for controlling the motion of the driver (changing it's natural frequency to achieve desired response), not constructive/destructive interference of sound waves.
***3. This tweak enables your BRAIN to combine the left Right signals. Now doesn't that occur with headphones? If so, why can't it work for speakers?***
It does work for speakers and all other sounds thanks to natural selection and our progenitors' roles as predator and prey.
***3. Decades of common knowledge? Yes, but my placement of the center panel corners facing forward is definitely NOT like a rack or cabinet. I am reflecting the separate left/ right signals back out into the room into the listeners ears, for the most part. Think reflectors in a concert hall.***
I totally missed thinking about the reflected sound. I was only thinking about the interference between the speakers. Your tweak reflects some of the sound that would have reflected off the far sidewall of each speaker and back to center and on through back and forth, losing energy and creating interference. I can see how it would focus the center image and lessen the confusion of those center crossing waves.
***You need not try it, BTW. I have employed this tweek for well over two decades noe. All I can say is that it works***
It is good that some still explore and ignore "common knowledge". Thank you.
#1 two identical signals meeting at 180 degrees would be reversed in polarity, No? That's what I meant by a strong mono signal.#2 Consider standard "in the box" thinking about null points and first reflection points. They all meet at the ear and the brain/ear interface puts them together.
#3. The reflection off the panels is a bonus. You can place a single vertical panel and still hear differences although it will not be as marked. The key is the blockage must block left signal from right signal! Few cabinets or racks are set up so
As my contention goes, the left /right common signals meeting in the middle are never really precisely equal. The left channel may be slightly stronger at a particular frequency bandwidth and the right at another. This,in my hearing, causes a slight wavering, if you could say, in the precise center image. Oh, its not really serious, for the most part, but with the system in place focus becomes rather startling. Its like switching from an Instamatic camera to a good SLR (whoops giving away my age)To be honest in going to CES since 1982, I have never heard imaging how I can get it no matter what the system cost was.
Of course YMMV and FWIW
That being said,a couple big pieces of cardboard and you can easily try this. We will wait for our French audiophile to report back ( hopefully). No cardboard big enough?: stack a few boxes on a bar stool
Edits: 04/22/15
"We will wait for our French audiophile to report back ( hopefully)"That will be done this Week end!
I've received all the things to build your z-sleeve receipe mabe this week too!
:)
PS: In you fisrt post you said the panels where in touch at the v-point, but I don't see it on the picture...
Edits: 04/22/15
I meant if the panels touch at the point it is ok. This applies to those who use a room divider. Because I happen to use room tunes(I used to sell them), the bases force me to spread the panels at the point.
In the back against the wall, in the photo, you can see a stack of m'pingo wood on some EAU devices on a speaker stand. Curiously the m'ping turning stock helps increase the depth of the soundstage ( Gilmor woods in Portland, IIRC, sells them). You can see the bell sticking up, and it makes an interesting alteration to sound, even though cracked.
When a local music store closed I made contact with their repair man and scored some broken clarinet bodies which are made from m'pingo ( as are oboes for that matter. I stripped them of the keys and find I can use them in a similar fashion. Buffet Crampton, long the pinnacle of clarinet manufacturers (there are others now) is based in Paris, IIRC, so maybe you can find some dead instruments for minimal price.
The m'pingo blocks in the center front on the floor actually moves the sound stage a bit more forward, BTW, counter balancing the blocks in the rear. I haven't tried too many other woods but have experimented with cocobolo, rosewood, snakewood, and a few others
![]()
Hi Stu,
First test of you pool table tweak.
I found two boards and quickly screwed them together.
On the album of Serge Gainsbourg, "Melody Nelson" I heard much better voices with a more "organic sense" but I noticed too that the singers seemed to move from center to the right.
I will continue testings and find maybe better angle...
Apex of the two panels is quite critical: sometimes only a degree or two makes a huge difference. You may be hearing some of the reflection off the floor on the right side too 8^).When the room is asymmetrical don't be afraid to set up the panels likewise.Might be easier to use those double hinges or even a L bracket on the bottom
Then again on the Joan Baez live album I was perplexed because her voice was slightly off center (at least on my favorite track). Then I let the Lp play on she popped into dead center !. Apparently from the photos she would simply shift her stance and move her weight from one leg to the other while the mike remained the same....
PS on closer examination seems like the left panel protrudes a bit further than the right panel. Makes a difference. even a centimeter or so...
Edits: 04/25/15 04/25/15
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: