Control directivity for stereo listening?

[sceptical1]

Considering a modern speaker that conforms to the constant/controlled directivity advocated by Olive/Harmon I find that sparse absorption between the speakers (rockwool 3"-24 x15, 2 pieces) and a considerable distance of > 3ft. to the sidewalls is what is needed to take advantage of those proposed improvements claimed for an on/off axis FR similarity and accuracy.
Interaction relative to the proximity between speakers allow for a mixture of the left and right channels that is far from predictable. Absorbing those inside reflections results in a far more stable and consistently coherent soundstage not to mention, more of a cardiode response by reducing the effects of the room.

My LP is a 10.5 ft. triangle with the speakers pointed a foot inside on axis.

Reflections outside of the stereo pair that add to a sense of ambience (if those sidewall reflections are not absorbed, as cautioned against by the experts) are further enhanced by highly reflective sidewall material such as glass or plastic. I get perfectly coherent phantom images at 30° beyond the speaker, if you like that kind of thing. My problem is that those instrument sounds are independent of the overall soundstage image...at the wrong level for volume and position...a distraction from homogenous, carefree listening. There is a Pink Floyd song and some by Madonna often mentioned that impresses some listeners, I mean those type of distractions.

Is this a common theme for others, can sparse absorption in the right position make a huge improvement, is directivity room dependent, are you easily duped by surround sounding effects of stereo yet ignore every word Toole says about the superiority of multichannel reproduction?

Thanks for commenting.

 

[geickmei]

Considering a modern speaker that conforms to the constant/controlled directivity advocated by Olive/Harmon I find that sparse absorption between the speakers (rockwool 3"-24 x15, 2 pieces) and a considerable distance of > 3ft. to the sidewalls is what is needed to take advantage of those proposed improvements claimed for an on/off axis FR similarity and accuracy.
Interaction relative to the proximity between speakers allow for a mixture of the left and right channels that is far from predictable. Absorbing those inside reflections results in a far more stable and consistently coherent soundstage not to mention, more of a cardiode response by reducing the effects of the room.

My LP is a 10.5 ft. triangle with the speakers pointed a foot inside on axis.

Reflections outside of the stereo pair that add to a sense of ambience (if those sidewall reflections are not absorbed, as cautioned against by the experts) are further enhanced by highly reflective sidewall material such as glass or plastic. I get perfectly coherent phantom images at 30° beyond the speaker, if you like that kind of thing. My problem is that those instrument sounds are independent of the overall soundstage image...at the wrong level for volume and position...a distraction from homogenous, carefree listening. There is a Pink Floyd song and some by Madonna often mentioned that impresses some listeners, I mean those type of distractions.

Is this a common theme for others, can sparse absorption in the right position make a huge improvement, is directivity room dependent, are you easily duped by surround sounding effects of stereo yet ignore every word Toole says about the superiority of multichannel reproduction?

Thanks for commenting.

"at the wrong level for volume and position...a distraction from homogenous, carefree listening."

At the wrong level? Turn it up. It would probably never occur to most audiophiles to increase the level of the off axis sound in addition to keeping it the same freq response (power response). This property of the radiation pattern is called the Direct to Reflected ratio. It should be about equal, but to achieve it you need more gain to the rear because of the greater distance of the front wall reflections compared to the actual speakers.

Gary

 

[sigbergaudio]

@geickmei How do you propose to turn up the voluime of the off-axis sound on a speaker?

@sceptical1 Which speakers do you currently have where you are experiencing this? You shouldn't need to put absorbtion between the speakers for proper soundstaging.

 

[DVDdoug]

Is this a common theme for others...?

I enjoy stereo... I beats mono... but I don't really think about the soundstage illusion. I mostly listen to studio-produced rock so it's all artificial anyway.

I enjoy surround even more! And with stereo at home I use a "theater" or "hall" setting on my AVR for the "feel" of a larger space, which is hi-fi heresy since I'm not listening as intended.

If you want to reproduce what the mixing & mastering engineer were hearing you need a mostly-dead "studio-like" space. It turns-out that most people don't like a dead room. Someone once called those people "studiophiles".

I also never get a precise phantom center illusion... The center usually seems a bit wide and vague... Most of it is rather vague to me except for hard-panned sounds, especially the higher frequencies which I hear coming directly from the tweeter, or at least that's the impression I get... We tend to over-estimate our ability to locate the source of sounds until we are trying to find a cricket or a rattle/squeak in the car. I might be fooling myself, since I can see the tweeter and/or I know where it is.

I read something once about the folly of mixing engineers obsessively trying to pan everything precisely. Unfortunately, the article has disappeared from the Internet but the point was that it will be different on a different system in a different room, or that simply changing your listening position (including while mixing/monitoring) will affect your perception.

If you get obsessive you MIGHT end-up optimizing for one particular recording...

...And like most people, I don't get anything like a realistic soundstage illusion with headphones.

 

[sigbergaudio]

I also never get a precise phantom center illusion... The center usually seems a bit wide and vague... Most of it is rather vague to me except for hard-panned sounds, especially the higher frequencies which I hear coming directly from the tweeter, or at least that's the impression I get... We tend to over-estimate our ability to locate the source of sounds until we are trying to find a cricket or a rattle/squeak in the car. I might be fooling myself, since I can see the tweeter and/or I know where it is.

Sounds your speakers are not imaging / presenting the soundstage properly (can be a speaker, room or placement problem, or a combination). When this works well, the sound isn't perceived to be coming from the speakers at all.

That being said, the "experience" of a soundstage seems to vary from person to person as well with regards to how much it matters to them.

 

[sceptical1]

"at the wrong level for volume and position...a distraction from homogenous, carefree listening."

This is what should have been quoted:
those instrument sounds are independent of the overall soundstage image...at the wrong level for volume and position

BTW, Baach makes your model for stereo imaging obsolete.

 

[sceptical1]

I would nominate you for member of the month for your multitude of helpful posts.
This:

at home I use a "theater" or "hall" setting on my AVR

Frankly scares me. Please say you back off on the reverb level in menu settings.

 

[DVDdoug]

Sounds your speakers are not imaging / presenting the soundstage properly (can be a speaker, room or placement problem, or a combination). When this works well, the sound isn't perceived to be coming from the speakers at all.

...That being said, the "experience" of a soundstage seems to vary from person to person as well with regards to how much it matters to them.

Exactly! It's my ears & brain. Soundstage is obviously an illusion when the sound is really coming from a pair of the speakers.

And I didn't say i was perceiving EVERYTHING coming directly from the speakers. I said the center is rather wide or vague, but not as "wide" as the speakers. But if a guitar is hard-panned and coming only from the left speaker, I'll perceive it coming from the left speaker.

With headphones I hear hard-panned sounds coming directly into my ear from the headphone (almost "injected" into my ear) with most of the "soundstage" located somewhere near my forehead. I don't get the more common perception of the sound coming from inside my head.

 

[sceptical1]

Which speakers do you currently have where you are experiencing this?

Bryston Mini-T

 

[geickmei]

This is what should have been quoted:
those instrument sounds are independent of the overall soundstage image...at the wrong level for volume and position

BTW, Baach makes your model for stereo imaging obsolete.

 

[geickmei]

BAACH makes me want to re-quote BLAUERT.

THERE ARE TWO WAYS OF REPRODUCING AUDITORY PERSPECTIVE - FIELD TYPE AND HEAD RELATED, OR BINAURAL.

 

[sigbergaudio]

Exactly! It's my ears & brain. Soundstage is obviously an illusion when the sound is really coming from a pair of the speakers.

And I didn't say i was perceiving EVERYTHING coming directly from the speakers. I said the center is rather wide or vague, but not as "wide" as the speakers. But if a guitar is hard-panned and coming only from the left speaker, I'll perceive it coming from the left speaker.

With headphones I hear hard-panned sounds coming directly into my ear from the headphone (almost "injected" into my ear) with most of the "soundstage" located somewhere near my forehead. I don't get the more common perception of the sound coming from inside my head.

Yes, well some speakers do this better than others. And the way it's set up and the room of course matters too.