Which Part have lowest stereo width of the synth sound in the attached mp3 ?

[bennybbbx]

It is a test of 3 speakers record with 2 MTM MEMS microphones on a stereo Microphone Bar. Part 1(the first) of the compare.mp3 piece is the original. Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 are the recorded speakers i have test. I have EQ so all speakers sound in frequency near same. Is it for you clear hearable if there is 1 part that have much less width than original ?. the diffrence you hear better when not hear loud. better hear in headphones. but most hearable it is on speaker. but if you have a speaker that is not precise enough there can hear no diffrence. when i play the example on the speaker with the smallest width, then can hear near no diffrence.

The speakers i test in alphabetical order is
Canton Plus X.3 have 4 Zoll bass/Mid
iloud MTM 2* 3.5 Zoll Bass/Mid
Kali LP6 6.5 Zoll Bass/Mid

And for the experts here. maybe you have suggestions (VST effects) that work on all songs so the speaker with the smallest stereo width sound good as other. it seem a transient problem. but when play all files mono there can not hear a diffrence so much as in stereo

 

[andreasmaaan]

Could you send 4 separate files so that it's possible to switch quickly to compare. Too difficult when they are in a row like that with gaps in between..

In terms of VST effects, my preferred stereo widener is Ozone Imager. But AFAIK it's only available as part of an expensive package of Ozone plugins.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I have the single parts in the attached zip

Thanks but it's still just one file with the four parts one after the other.

 

[bennybbbx]

oh sorry was wromng zip. now is the correct zip

 

[bennybbbx]

nobody have vote currently. is it not clear hearable ?. the vote is anonym and zip file is need because mp3 extension is not support on forum. I have now upload a new longer test. i think in this can hear better which of the guitar double track sound smallest. when hear in real the diffrence is much more, and the microphone record due to crossover loose most on widest stereo width and not so much on smallest stereo width speaker. I have use 4 zips because with 1 zig file size is too large for forum. whats the limit for zip in forum ?

 

[andreasmaaan]

@bennybbbx I didn't vote because I couldn't work out what you meant by "synth sound" - all I could hear on the recording was drums and guitar.

 

[earlevel]

I have EQ so all speakers sound in frequency near same.

The first post (synth) is too short to have a chance to tell much. The other example in separate files is so distractingly different sounding from each other that I can't really focus on the stereo-ness. For example, 4b is so far from the original I don't know if it's a miking issue or the speakers really sound like that.

 

[bennybbbx]

@bennybbbx I didn't vote because I couldn't work out what you meant by "synth sound" - all I could hear on the recording was drums and guitar.

the b example use no synth sound. it use guitar double track. and for the b example is then question. in which part (2-4) the guitar sound widest

 

[bennybbbx]

The first post (synth) is too short to have a chance to tell much. The other example in separate files is so distractingly different sounding from each other that I can't really focus on the stereo-ness. For example, 4b is so far from the original I don't know if it's a miking issue or the speakers really sound like that.

the mic and the speaker position was same in all tests. you can change with EQ the examples or you can switch to mono and back. maybe then diffrence is better hear. because a distortet guitar need a fast precise speaker to sound correct, unprecise speakers change the sound of guitar much. the guitar sound also less crisp on unprecise speakers and are not so loud and width in compare to drums. it can compensate by boost high freq. but then other songs sound not good with that setting. the loss in stereo width i think is easiest to detect not precise speakers. all speakers are measured with mathroom room EQ so they sound simular as possible.

when you hear you should look at the frequency below 2 khz. how wide they are in guitar. maybe i should do a bandpass example with frequency from 200 hz upto 2 khz with 96 db cut

 

[bennybbbx]

maybe it is better to choose when i ask the question. which part have the smallest room size or which part sound as it is record in a smaller room. what do you think ?

 

[Pio2001]

Hi,
I have listened to the guitar samples only.

Spoiler

With HD600 headphones, part 4 is the one with the widest stereo. But it is off-balance with more energy on the left side.
Part 3 has a moderate stereo effect between the two guitars
Part 2 has the same stereo on the cymbals as part 3, but the guitar are less separated. However, this might be because one of the two guitars is attenuated because of the frequency response, and maybe the effect would be the opposite with another track. I voted part 2 as the one with the least stereo separation.

As far as frequency response is concerned, Part 3 is the closest to the original, followed by part 2. Part 4 is faaar below.

 

[bennybbbx]

Hi,
I have listened to the guitar samples only.

Spoiler

With HD600 headphones, part 4 is the one with the widest stereo. But it is off-balance with more energy on the left side.
Part 3 has a moderate stereo effect between the two guitars
Part 2 has the same stereo on the cymbals as part 3, but the guitar are less separated. However, this might be because one of the two guitars is attenuated because of the frequency response, and maybe the effect would be the opposite with another track. I voted part 2 as the one with the least stereo separation.

As far as frequency response is concerned, Part 3 is the closest to the original, followed by part 2. Part 4 is faaar below.

yes you hear this correct. and there is 1 vote for part 2. this is too correct. guitars have less separations on part 2.
But it seem for others not easy to hear. I try later another record. this time i record mono. first i record left channel then on a second play the right channel. then i mix them in DAW to stereo. this avoid crossfeed from left to right speaker due to microphones

maybe this bring more realistic what can hear real life over the microphone and headphone. when hear real there is a much bigger diffrence hearable in width. the part 4 i have done with the canton plus x.3 and the kali lp6 as subwoofer with crossfade at 80 hz. it is measure by AVR and AVR do phase correct. i also correct this with mathroom. I did not know wy this sound so diffrent. but i guess this happen because subwoof LP6 is behind TFT monitor in the middle and play also something on higher freq as 80 hz

the speakers i test have diffrence in impulse response. bigger bass/mid driver are slower.

this is impulse response from speaker of part 2 (Kali LP6)

this of Part 3 ik multimedia iloud MTM

this of part 4 Canton plus x.3 with kali as subwoofer and crossover 80 hz.

 

[dasdoing]

nobody have vote currently. is it not clear hearable ?. the vote is anonym and zip file is need because mp3 extension is not support on forum. I have now upload a new longer test. i think in this can hear better which of the guitar double track sound smallest. when hear in real the diffrence is much more, and the microphone record due to crossover loose most on widest stereo width and not so much on smallest stereo width speaker. I have use 4 zips because with 1 zig file size is too large for forum. whats the limit for zip in forum ?

stereo width is all the same to me, FR is very diferent with 3b very, very close to original.

about "widning software": Ozone has allready been mentioned, it realy is the only one I tested that doesn t create very strange phase issues.
a possible alternative is this https://www.uaudio.com/uad-plugins/mastering/k-stereo-ambience-recovery.html

 

[bennybbbx]

stereo width is all the same to me, FR is very diferent with 3b very, very close to original.

about "widning software": Ozone has allready been mentioned, it realy is the only one I tested that doesn t create very strange phase issues.
a possible alternative is this https://www.uaudio.com/uad-plugins/mastering/k-stereo-ambience-recovery.html

between original(1b) and the 3 b you hear stereo width diffrence ?. I have no UAD and can not test

Now have upload new records. First i record left channel then on a second play the right channel. then i mix the 2 mono records in DAW to stereo. this avoid crossfeed from left to right speaker due to microphones and the better speaker do not loss so much stereo separation as the stereo record. all records sound now in generel more near as the previous records with 2 microphones on microphone bar

i named it 5 b and 6 b. is it now better hear which record have stereo width or stereo separation smallest to original ?

 

[bennybbbx]

so seem still no diffrence you hear. I have now another example do and name it part 7b .maybe then you can hear what smallest is in stereo width and stereo spread or room feeling (smaller room). in this test is too the celestion 10 zoll guitar speaker record. because i record only 1 channel and on second play the 2. stereo channel this was possible.

So you can hear in 1 of the 3 parts the Celestion 10 Zoll Green Bag with Tube Power Amp in the Marshal combo. and my theory is confirm. larger mid speaker do less stereo width. so which Part do you think is smallest stereo width ?

the step response of the Celestion. it is only invert so the impulse go to lower

 

[dasdoing]

between original(1b) and the 3 b you hear stereo width diffrence ?. I have no UAD and can not test

Now have upload new records. First i record left channel then on a second play the right channel. then i mix the 2 mono records in DAW to stereo. this avoid crossfeed from left to right speaker due to microphones and the better speaker do not loss so much stereo separation as the stereo record. all records sound now in generel more near as the previous records with 2 microphones on microphone bar

i named it 5 b and 6 b. is it now better hear which record have stereo width or stereo separation smallest to original ?

again, there is some kind of ilusion of one having more than the other, but it sounds like this is cause of FR diferences

so seem still no diffrence you hear. I have now another example do and name it part 7b .maybe then you can hear what smallest is in stereo width and stereo spread or room feeling (smaller room). in this test is too the celestion 10 zoll guitar speaker record. because i record only 1 channel and on second play the 2. stereo channel this was possible.

So you can hear in 1 of the 3 parts the Celestion 10 Zoll Green Bag with Tube Power Amp in the Marshal combo. and my theory is confirm. larger mid speaker do less stereo width. so which Part do you think is smallest stereo width ?

the step response of the Celestion. it is only invert so the impulse go to lowerView attachment 100882

the file is empty

 

[dasdoing]

I think you are "aufm Holzweg".

direct sound and reflections will always come from the same places if the speakers are at the same places.

 

[bennybbbx]

again, there is some kind of ilusion of one having more than the other, but it sounds like this is cause of FR diferences
the file is empty

oh sorry, here is the correct. the old i can not remove. post is not editable . if i am "aufm Holzweg" i wish verify with people in forum. you can also modify my examples with EQ to change FR to check me if I can really hear which is wider. the diffrence i hear is so much and always same in stereo width. if i put the speaker near wall or from wall away. the direction diagram of Kali mtm or canton does not show that the kali is worse. only impulse response is worse on kali. you can also use a match EQ to make frequency same. Match Eq or measuring make the kali and even more celestion speaker much more dull as the other. because the frequency is measure not with transients. i enhance with EQ the Kali and celesetion, so sound more simular so nobody say. it is because of FR.

EDIT: the celestion speaker is a wide band speaker 10 inch and driven with a tube amp

 

[bennybbbx]

but it sounds like this is cause of FR diferences

if this is from FR diffrences or not doesnt matter the question is did you hear that some of the examples have less stereo separation and stereo width ?. you can also tell if you hear a diffrence between original and the other part. because nobody seem hear it. part 7 is the big celestion speaker and have smallest stereo width in compare to other

 

[bennybbbx]

did nobody hear diffrence ?. now i do 2 tests on process original with ozone stereo imager. if you can hear stereo width diffrence during song is play. i do it with automation. can you hear stereo width diffrence in width test 1 or width test 2 better or not ?

1 test reduce width from 150-2 khz the other test reduce stereo width from 2 khz to 20 khz.